MASTER 
NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  91-80017 


MICROFILMED  1991 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


(( 


as  part  of  the 
Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  —  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


IRELAND,  ALLEYNE 


TITLE: 


DEMOCRACY  AND  THE 


PLACE: 


NEW  YORK 


DA  TE : 


[C1921] 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


^_l-^O0_n-_Lj 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGFT 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


,9\      IIIIH"  ■ 

342*73 
Ir2 


pi  .■!  wmiBii     muL        p«|     ipii,     I 


!■    Jijip     I     i 


D34G»73 


D320 
Ir2 


Ireland,  Alleyne,  1871-1951 

Democracy  and  the  human  equation,  by  Alleyne  Ireland 
...    New  York,  E.  P.  Button  &  company  fl921] 

X  p.,  2  l,  251  p.    2U'^". 


Copy  in  Co il logo  Study > 

Copy  in  Butlor  Library  of  Philosopliy.  | 

1.  JJ.  S.— Pol.  &  govt.    2.  Representative  government  and  representation. 
I.  Title. 


Library  of  Congress 
Cepjrf. 


Copyright    A  608072 


JK27LI  5 


i5j 


21-955 


-J 


FILM     SIZE:      3^ /Dm 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


REDUCTION     RATIO: 


IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  (M    IB     IIB 

DATE     FILMED:„>^^i2^V INITIALS__Utl^^, 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIOMS.  INC  WOODBRtBGer<^" 


\ 


n 


Association  for  information  and  Image  Management 

1 1 00  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1 1 00 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12        3        4 

J 


liiiiliiiiliiiilniilii 

M  M     I  M  I 


Inches 


1 


6         7        8        9        10 

||||||miliiiililllll||j||||||n^ 


1.0 


I.I 


11       12       13      14 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 
I     I  M 


15    mm 


m 


IttiM 


150 


1^  ilM 


us, 

I-     u 


36 

1^ 


125       U 


2.5 
2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


"+1 


MRNUFnCTURED   TO   fillM   STRNDRRDS 
BY   fiPPLIED   IMRGE,     INC. 


THEIUMAM 


.  V.'.V.'-' 


ALLEYNE  IRELAND 


•t^l 


•5'.*v»''.'*.''I  v^'ivvvr  i*iri*«'^'» 

«     /.         r..     .      -,., 

■•■;-•■_**# 

'.'*     *.*.'.^.*.'.*.".*v 

•.•.'.'.'.■.■  •.  .•.•••.•.•.'?.•.'. 

•>»•;•. v%*.'»^i'  •'tJ'J*. 

.■•■■>:->y 

'X*:* 'y'rvC-.^^iM 

•^^^i•y  rw  •>^^  w*'>>,- V 

.    .;..•.> 

f\4yiYryh-}<'c 

»•»:•  ;•.  ■ :  ;:.:.•/:•.••>:•- 

*-'■■«- 


rr 


D^ 


p/^Sd 


^ 


pRjL^mikviSms 

^  ^^"'"tOFFlCll 


y= 


^-ETBENiyiVENDI 
DISCIPUINAM 


H^^ 


r--. 


>rr-0 


00»mmS  A  *^«. 


\  } 


'\     \ 


DEMOCRACY  AND 
THE  HUMAN  EQUATION 


|i 


DEMOCRACY  AND 
THE   HUMAN   EQUATION 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 


AN  ADVENTURE  WITH  A 
GENIUS 

lECOLLECnONS   OF  JOSEPH    PULITZER 

Previously  published  under  the  title  of 
"Joseph  Pulitzer:  Reminiscences  of  a  Sec- 
retary." 

A  remarkable  description  of  a  remarkable 
man,  hailed  by  the  press  on  its  first  pub- 
lication as  one  of  the  most  brilliant  speci- 
mens of  impressionistic  biography  in  the 
language* 


BY 

ALLEYNE  IRELAND 

FELLOW   OF   THE   ROYAL   GEOGRAPHICAL  SOCIETY 
AUTHOR   OF   "an   ADVENTURE  WITH  A   GENIUS,"    "THE  FAR 
EASTERN     TROPICS,"     "THE     PROVINCE     OF     BURMA,"    ETC. 


NEW  YORK 

E.  P.  BUTTON  &•  COMPANY 
681   FIFTH  AVENUE 


Copyright,  192  i, 
BY  E.  P.  DUTTON  &  COMPANY 


All  Rights  Reserved 


PREFACE 


Printed  in  tli«  TTnited  States  of  America 


There  is  every  indication  that  the  military  con- 
flict which  ended  two  years  ago  is  to  be  followed 
by  one  of  a  different  character  and  of  a  deeper 
significance  to  human  society.  On  one  side  will  be 
ranged  those  who  wish  to  preserve  the  institutions 
of  Representative  Government,  on  the  other  those 
who  wish  to  destroy  them. 

The  author  is  convinced  that  Representative  Gov- 
ernment— whether  it  is  applied  in  a  Republic  or  in 
a  Limited  Monarchy — is  capable  of  performing 
more  efficiently  than  any  other  system,  and  with 
less  restraint  upon  personal  liberty,  whatever  func- 
tions any  self-governing  people  may  deem  proper  to 
Government. 

It  would  be  idle  to  pretend  that  the  position  of 
Representative  Government  in  the  United  States  is 
not  extremely  precarious.  It  is  in  danger  of  being 
overthrown  either  by  the  direct  attack  of  the  So- 
cialists or  by  the  flank  attack  of  those  who,  through 
the  Initiatives,  the  Referendum,  and  the  Recall,  are 
engaged  in  setting  up  a  Direct  Democracy.  For 
such  a  change  the  way  had  already  been  made  easy 


VI 


Preface 


by  the  tacit  abandonment  of  the  representative  prln- 
ciple  in  American  Government  in  favor  of  a  principle 

of  delegation. 

The  considerations  presented  to  the  reader  in  the 
following  pages  center  around  this  point.  They 
are  confined  to  a  brief  examination  of  three  factors 
in  political  determinism,  which  dominate  all  others, 
which  are  closely  related  to  each  other,  and  which, 
until  quite  recently,  have  received  little  attention. 

(i)  Since  popular  Government  can  reflect  only 
those  qualities  which  belong  to  the  men  and  women 
who  take  part  in  it,  it  is  necessary  to  reach  a  clear 
understanding  of  the  influences  which  make  men 
and  women  what  they  are.  This  raises  the  issue  of 
the  comparative  importance  of  heredity  and  environ- 
ment in  determining  human  qualities.  Until  this 
issue  Is  definitely  settled  we  can  have  no  sound  basis 
for  an  educational  policy,  for  an  immigration  policy, 
or  for  a  reasoned  attitude  towards  the  science  of 

Eugenics. 

(2)  The  representative  principle  in  Government 
rests  upon  the  recognition  of  the  great  inequalities 
which  exist  between  one  human  being  and  another 
in  mental  and  In  moral  traits.  Its  distinguishing  fea- 
ture Is  that,  If  faithfully  applied.  It  will  place  the  di- 
rection of  public  affairs  In  the  hands  of  citizens  very 
much  above  the  average  in  intelligence,  in  knowl- 
edge, and  In  Integrity.    When  the  principle  of  dele- 


PREFACE 


vu 


gatlon  Is  applied  to  political  agency  the  effect  I»  to 
throw  the  control  of  Government  into  the  hands 
of  the  mediocre  and  inferior  classes  in  the  electo- 
rate, to  degrade  the  tone  of  public  life,  and  to  give 
always  an  inefficient  and  generally  a  corrupt  ad- 
ministration. 

(3)  The  enormous  Increase  which  has  occurred 
within  the  past  twenty-five  years  in  the  number  and 
in  the  complexity  of  the  tasks  assumed  by  Govern- 
ment makes  It  Imperative  that  the  operation  of 
purely  political  agency  should  be  circumscribed,  that 
the  functions  of  policy  and  administration  in  Gov- 
ernment should  be  completely  separated,  and  that 
an  empirical  science  of  administrative  technique 
should  be  formulated  and  taught  to  all  public 
servants. 

The  title  of  this  volume  Indicates  the  essential 
character  of  the  problem  of  popular  Government. 
Government  Is  created  by  human  beings;  It  Is  admin- 
istered by  human  beings;  It  Is  administered  to  human 
beings;  it  Is  dominated  in  every  phase  by  the  human 
equation,  and  the  formal  elements  In  Government 
can  only  be  appraised  usefully  with  reference  to  this 
circumstance. 

The  service  which  history  can  render  to  the  stu- 
dent of  Government  will  always  retain  its  value, 
but  It  must  be  supplemented  by  service  from  another 
source.     What  is  now  needed  is  that  the  special 


Till 


Preface 


Preface 


IX 


knowledge  of  the  biologist,  of  the  psychologist,  of 
the  sociologist,  and  of  the  political  scientist  should 
be  coordinated  in  an  exhaustive  enquiry  into  the 
form  and  function  of  Government.  The  value  of 
such  an  enquiry  would  be  inestimable.  It  would  re- 
move from  the  field  of  conjecture  many  important 
questions  which  are  now  the  subject  of  heated  con- 
troversy, it  would  furnish  the  world's  intelligence 
with  material  upon  which  a  clear  judgment  could 
be  reached  about  every  problem  with  which  Gov- 
ernment is  concerned,  it  would  lay  the  foundation  of 
a  science  of  public  administration,  it  would  pave  the 
way  for  making  education  in  citizenship  part  of  the 
curriculum  of  every  school  and  college. 

Many  people  would  be  averse  to  having  such  an 
enquiry  undertaken.  Among  them  would  be  those 
who  have  a  vested  interest  in  the  present  inefficiency 
and  corruption  of  Government,  those  who  fear 
Truth,  and  those  who  are  fugitives  from  Knowledge. 
But  for  an  enterprise  of  this  character  powerful 
support  should  be  forthcoming  from  those  whose 
dominating  quality  is  neither  acquisitiveness  nor  the 
love  of  self-deception.  The  War  has  done  much 
to  clarify  the  atmosphere  of  political  speculation;  it 
has  made  distinct  many  issues  which  were  formerly 
elusive;  it  has  crystallized  a  great  body  of  vague  dis- 
content with  Government  into  a  firm  resolve  that 


present  systems  of  Government  must  speedily  justify 
their  existence  or  must  give  way  to  others.  At  no 
time  has  the  opportunity  been  as  favorable  as  it  now 
is  to  secure  a  frank  and  searching  investigation  of 
Government  as  the  agency  of  social  control. 

The  writer  wishes  to  record  his  indebtedness  to 
the  authors  of  the  following  books : 

"Is  America  Worth  Saving?''  and  "True  and 
False  Democracy,"  by  Nicholas  Murray  Butler, 
President  of  Columbia  University. 

"American  Government  and  Politics,"  by  Charles 
A.  Beard,  Associate  Professor  of  Politics  in  Colum- 
bia University. 

"Human  Nature  in  Politics"  and  "The  Great  So- 
ciety," by  Graham  Wallas. 

"Public  Opinion  and  Popular  Government,"  by 
A.  Lawrence  Lowell,  President  of  Harvard  Uni- 
versity. 

"Progressive  Democracy,"  by  Herbert  Croly. 

"Democracy  at  the  Crossways,"  by  F.  J.  C. 
Hearnshaw. 

"A  Preface  to  Politics,"  by  Walter  Lippman. 

"Mental  and  Moral  Heredity  in  Royalty,"  by 
Frederick  Adams  Woods,  Lecturer  in  the  Biological 
Department  of  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Tech- 
nology. 

"Applied  Eugenics,"  by  Paul  Popenoe,  Editor  of 


Preface 


the  Journal  of  Heredity,  and  Roswell  Hill  John- 
son, Professor  in  the  University  of  Pittsburgh. 

"The  Nemesis  of  Mediocrity,"  by  Ralph  Adams 
Cram. 

**Back  to  the  Republic,"  by  Harry  F.  Atwood. 


Alleyne  Ireland. 


Catskill,  N.  Y.,  October,  1920. 


■ 'i 


CONTENTS 

PAOB 

Introduction i 

CHAPTBR 

I 21 

II 53 

III 80 

IV 119 

V 145 

VI 184 

VII 225 


m 
■if- 


DEMOCRACY  AND 
THE  HUMAN  EQUATION 


DEMOCRACY  AND  THE  HUMAN 

EQUATION 

INTRODUCTION 


J 


IT  win  serve  the  convenience  of  the  reader  if 
I  present  here  a  brief  summary  of  the  matters 
discussed  in  this  volume. 

The  United  States  commenced  its  career  as  an 
independent  nation  under  conditions  which  ap- 
peared to  guarantee  to  it  an  unprecedented  success 
in  solving  all  the  political  and  social  problems 
which  to  the  nations  of  the  old  world  had  proved 
insoluble. 

It  had  a  small  but  vigorous  and  self-reliant 
population;  it  had  safely  weathered  the  dangers 
which  had  almost  destroyed  but  had  never  daunted 
the  early  settlers;  it  had  become  used  to  orderly 
Government  under  a  system  which,  if  it  lacked 
something  of  that  freedom  which  is  the  most  prized 
possession  of  young  communities,  had  afforded  that, 
stability  without  which  young  communities  cannot 
learn  to  accept  those  restraints  upon  which  the 
tenure  of  freedom  depends. 


2     Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

The  revolt  against  the  mother-country  was  less 
an  expression  of  anger,  produced  by  specific  griev- 
ances, than  it  was  a  flowering  amid  new  surround- 
ings of  that  spirit  which,  nearly  a  hundred  years 
before,  had  emboldened  the  English  people  to  drive 
into  exile  a  king  who  claimed  to  derive  his  author- 
ity from  God,  and  to  set  upon  the  throne  a  king 
who  was  content  to  derive  it  from  an  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment. 

In  the  framing  of  its  national  Government  the 
United  States  had  been  more  fortunate  than  any 
nation  of  which  history  carries  the  record.  The 
Philadelphia  Convention  included  not  only  men 
great  in  their  own  time  and  in  their  own  country, 
but  also  men  who  will  be  esteemed  great  for  all 
time  and  in  every  country.  The  fame  of  an  assem- 
bly which  numbered  among  its  members  George 
Washington,  Benjamin  Franklin  and  Alexander 
Hamilton  can  only  be  extended  and  enhanced  by 
every  comparison  in  which  it  forms  a  term.  The 
Constitution,  which  was  the  final  outcome  of  the 
Convention's  labors,  is,  by  the  common  consent  of 
the  world's  intelligence,  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
political  documents  which  the  genius  of  man  has 
bequeathed  to  the  ages.  That  its  terms  are  vague, 
measured  by  the  requirements  of  legal  interpreta- 
tion, is  a  fault  which  time  and  circumstance  have 
imparted  to  it;  and  this  fault,  grave  as  are  the 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation      3 

consequences  which  have  flowed  from  it,  does  not 
detract  from  the  nobility  of  its  conception,  or  ob- 
scure the  sagacity  of  that  form  of  Government 
which  It  formulated  for  the  emulation  of  mankind 
and  which  it  prescribed  for  the  use  of  the  American 
people. 

To  that  people  was  presented  the  greatest  oppor- 
tunity with  which  any  people  have  ever  been 
blessed.  It  is,  perhaps,  the  only  occasion  in  the 
history  of  civilized  man  of  which  it  can  be  said  that 
the  road  of  self-determination  was  actually  open — 
the  obstacles  removed,  the  wayside  ambuscades  dis- 
persed. The  advantages  at  the  disposal  of  the 
American  people  when  they  became  a  nation  in- 
cluded every  advantage  which  any  people  had  ever 
enjoyed;  and  from  the  disadvantages  under  which 
other  peoples  had  labored  the  American  people  were 
happily  free. 

There  was  an  immense  territory,  immeasurably 
rich  in  soil,  in  minerals,  in  metal  ores,  in  forests; 
there  was  an  extended  and  well-harbored  coast  line; 
there  were  magnificent  rivers  giving  ready  access  to 
the  interior,  and  the  interior  was  a  vast  plain  pre- 
senting no  barriers  to  the  pioneer;  there  was  a 
climate  ranging  between  a  sub-arctic  rigor  and* a 
sub-tropical  clemency;  there  was  a  homogeneous 
population  of  northern  stock,  and  this  population 
was  endowed  with  a  heritage  of  physical  vigor  and 


1^ 


'^ 


,!r 


4     Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

of  moral  and  intellectual  worth,  and  with  a  tradi- 
tion of  high-spirited  self-reliance. 

The  conditions  which  exist  in  the  country  to-day 
are  a  strange  product  of  such  an  ancestry. 

Who   could  have   foreseen  that  in  less  than   a 
century  and  a  half  the  United  States  would  be  con- 
fronted with  almost  every  problem  which  Amer- 
icans have  so  persistently  regarded  as  the  odious 
monopoly  of  despotic  rule,  of  populations  sunk  in 
ignorance  and  condemned  to  misery  by  a  poor  soil, 
a  primitive  agriculture  and  a  still  more  primitive 
industry,  and  by  the  slavery  of  social  caste?     Who 
could  have   foreseen   that   in   a   land   upon   which 
nature  has  lavished  its  most  precious  gifts,  in  a  land 
consecrated  to  the  ideals  of  freedom  and  justice, 
in  a  land  where  every  child  can  claim  a  free  school- 
ing  and  every  man  a  share  in  Government,  a  point 
would  be  reached,  as  it  has  now  been  reached,  where 
every  symptom  is  to  be  observed  which  experience 
identifies  with  the  approach  of  a  serious  national 
crisis,  and  where  the  stability  of  the  national  insti- 
tutions is  threatened  by  every  form  of  discontent 
which  threatens  the  national  institutions  of  Europe? 
To  what  causes  should  this  state  of  affairs  be 
attributed?    To  many  causes,  of  course.     Of  these 
I  discuss  only  those  which  seem  to  me  to  be  of 
primary  importance,  and  of  which  the  operation  is 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation      5 

such  that  if  all  the  other  causes  for  our  immediate 
situation  were  removed,  and  these  primary  causes 
were  allowed  to  remain,  the  day  of  reckoning  would 
only  be  postponed. 

These  causes  are,  in  my  opinion,  the  following: 

( 1 )  That  the  principle  of  Representative  Repub- 
licanism, which  is  the  "heart  of  the  Consti- 
tution," has  disappeared  almost  entirely 
from  the  political  system  of  the  country,  and 
that  we  are  rapidly  drifting  into  that  system 
of  direct  Democracy  which  is  its  very  nega- 
tion. 

(2)  That  the  American  people  as  a  whole — 
judging  by  the  discussion  of  Government  in 
the  daily  press,  in  the  weekly,  monthly  and 
quarterly  periodicals,  from  the  platform  and 
from  the  pulpit — have  been  led  to  adopt  a 
rhapsodical  posture  towards  their  Govern- 
ment, and  have  thus  lost  all  sense  as  well 
of  the  proper  functions  of  Government  as 
of  the  proper  administration  of  Government. 

(3)  That  there  has  never  been  undertaken,  either 
in  the  United  States  or  in  any  other  country, 
a  comprehensive,  scientific  study  of  compara- 
tive Government;  and  that  in  consequence 
there  is  no  science  of  Government;  and  that 
all  that  can  be  said  of  it  is  what  a  certain 


I 


6     Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

Oxford  don  is  reported  to  have  said  of  logic 
— that  it  is  neither  a  science  nor  an  art,  but  ; 
only  a  dodge.  i 

THE  DISAPPEARANCE  OF  REPRESENTATIVE 

GOVERNMENT 

The  theory  on  which  the  principle  of  Representa- 
tive  Government  rests  is  very  simple.    All  the  peo- 
pie  in  a  modern  State  cannot  assemble  together, 
formulate  a  public  policy  and  put  it  into   effect; 
they  must,  therefore,  assign  these  tasks  to  a  few 
of  their  number,  specially  chosen  for  tha^  purpose. 
These  men  are  the  people's  representatives.    Now, 
except   in   regard  to   very  simple   questions— and 
there  are,  in  fact,  no  very  simple  questions  in  mod- 
ern  Government— and  in  regard  to  questions  which 
have  been  made  to  appear  simple  by  party  emotion- 
alism,  questions  such  as  the  tariff  is  to  Republican 
emotions,  and  as  State  Rights  used  to  be  to  Demo- 
cratic emotions — ^the  representative  is  to  use  his  own 
judgment,    after    acquainting   himself,    as    well    as 
he  is  able,  with  the  germane  facts,  and  after  hear- 
ing arguments   advanced   in   legislative   debate   by 
men  who  agree  with  his  interpretation  of  them  and 
by  men  who  differ  from  it.     A  representative  does 
I  not  go  to  a  legislature  to  represent  the  opinions  of 
i  those  who  elect  him;  he  goes   there  to  represent 
(   them  in  the  business  of  forming  opinions. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation     7 

If  his  opinions  turn  out  not  to  be  the  kind  of 
opinions  the  voters  like,  their  remedy  is  to  vote  for 
some  one  else  at  the  next  election.  It  is  precisely 
to  meet  this  situation  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  provides  for  congressional  elections 
every  two  years,  and  that  the  State  Constitutions 
all  contain  provisions  for  elections  at  short  intervals. 
This  system  has  such  enormous  advantages  over 
every  other  political  system  ever  devised  that,  // 
it  is  faithfully  carried  out,  you  can  get  out  of 
it  all  the  good  that  there  is  in  Government.  You 
can  get  from  it  all  the  advantages  of  Democracy 
'  (Government  by  the  people),  and  all  the  advantages 
of  Aristocracy  (Government  by  the  best  of  the  peo- 
ple), and  at  the  same  time  escape  every  disadvantage 
which  is  inherent  in  or  may  be  grafted  onto  cither 
of  them. 

But,  admirable  as  this  system  is,  it  has  one  draw- 
back, namely,  that  that  element  in  it  upon  which  its 
successful  operation  absolutely  depends — the  com- 
plete independence  of  the  representative — is  ex- 
tremely difficult  to  preserve,  not  only  in  its  full 
integrity,  but  even  in  any  such  measure  as  gives  it 
reality. 

It  IS  evident  that  if  you  elect  a  man  to  Congress 
and  then  get  five  thousand  people  to  send  him  tele- 
grams telling  him  how  to  vote;  if  you  send  a  paid 
lobbyist  to  him  who  threatens  him  with  defeat  at 


V. 


8     Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

the  next  election  If  he  does  not  vote  for  a  bill  agree- 
able to  the  interests  of  the  lobbyist's  clients;  if  you 
send  a  deputation  to  his  office,  with  band  playing  and 
banners  flying,  to  demand  that  In  some  matter  he 
IS  to  be  guided  by  the  deputation's  mill  and  not  by 
.his  own  conviction — if  you  do  these  things,  your  man// 
( Is  no  longer  a  representative — he  Is  a  delegate,  \ 
Now,  a  delegate  Is  a  man  who  must  vote,  not 
as  his  judgment  counsels  him,  but  according  to  the 
Instructions  of  those  who  employ  him;  and  In  what- 
ever degree  a  man  yields  to  the  Idea  of  delegation, 
he  loses.  In  an  equal  degree,  his  character  as  a  rep- 
resentative. The  progress  of  converting  nominal  rep- 
resentatives Into  actual  delegates  has  the  effect  of 
destroying  the  whole  significance  of  Representative 
Government. 

These  arguments  apply  In  every  respect,  and 
with  what  should  be  irresistible  force,  to  the  devices 
known  as  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum  and  the 
Recall.  It  is  not  difficult  to  make  a  good  brief 
in  support  of  the  I.  R.  R.;  but  no  brief  is  worth 
the  paper  it  is  written  on  which  attempts  to  prove 
that  where  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum  and  the 
Recall  are,  there  the  people  are  living  under  that 
form  of  Representative  Republicanism  which  Is 
guaranteed  to  them  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Of  all  the  evil  consequences  which  are  Inseparable 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation     9 

from  the  weakening  of  the  representative  principle 
in  Government  and  from  the  strengthening  of  the 
principle  of  delegation,  the  most  disastrous,  the  most 
widespreading,  the  most  insidious  Is  the  lowering 
of  the  tone  of  Government.  One  Is  often  asked  why 
It  is  that  so  little  of  the  best  ability  of  the  country, 
so  little  of  its  best  character,  finds  Its  way  Into  the 
political  life  of  the  United  States.  A  moment's  re- 
flection supplies  the  answer.  It  Is  because  few  men 
of  high  abilities,  few  men  of  high  character,  will 
put  their  abilities  and  their  character  In  mortgage 
to  their  Inferiors.  To  represent  the  people  Is  an 
ambition  which  could  claim  the  service  of  the  ablest 
and  most  upright  men  in  the  country;  to  be  the 
/  people's  tool,  to  take  part  In  public  life  only  as 
the  obedient  servant  of  every  whim  and  passion  by 
which  the  popular  will  Is  swayed.  Is  an  ambition 
which  can  appeal  to  few  men  who  are  not  circum- 
scribed by  their  Intellectual  and  moral  defects. 

THE   RHAPSODICAL   ELEMENT  IN  GOVERNMENT 

I  apply  the  word  ^'rhapsodical''  to  a  number  of 
very  common  reactions  toward  Government  and  to- 
ward matters  closely  related  to  it. 

It  is  rhapsodical,  in  my  view,  to  describe  Govern- 
ment in  terms  of  its  own  description  of  Itself,  In- 
stead of  in  terms  of  what  It  Is. 

It  is  rhapsodical  to  deduce  the  effects  of  Govern- 


8     Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

the  next  election  If  he  does  not  vote  for  a  bill  agree- 
able to  the  interests  of  the  lobbyist's  clients;  If  you 
send  a  deputation  to  his  office,  with  band  playing  and 
banners  flying,  to  demand  that  In  some  matter  he 
is  to  be  guided  by  the  deputation's  will  and  not  by  i 
ihis  own  conviction — if  you  do  these  things,  your  man  ' 
( Is  no  longer  a  representative — he  Is  a  delegate,      ^ 

Now,  a  delegate  Is  a  man  who  must  vote,  not 
as  his  judgment  counsels  him,  but  according  to  the 
Instructions  of  those  who  employ  him;  and  In  what- 
ever degree  a  man  yields  to  the  Idea  of  delegation, 
he  loses.  In  an  equal  degree,  his  character  as  a  rep- 
resentative. The  progress  of  converting  nominal  rep- 
resentatives Into  actual  delegates  has  the  effect  of 
destroying  the  whole  significance  of  Representative 
Government. 

These  arguments  apply  in  every  respect,  and 
with  what  should  be  Irresistible  force,  to  the  devices 
known  as  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum  and  the 
Recall.  It  Is  not  difficult  to  make  a  good  brief 
in  support  of  the  I.  R.  R.;  but  no  brief  Is  worth 
the  paper  It  Is  written  on  which  attempts  to  prove 
that  where  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum  and  the 
Recall  are,  there  the  people  are  living  under  that 
form  of  Representative  Republicanism  which  Is 
guaranteed  to  them  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Of  all  the  evil  consequences  which  are  Inseparable 


/ 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation     9 

from  the  weakening  of  the  representative  principle 
in  Government  and  from  the  strengthening  of  the 
principle  of  delegation,  the  most  disastrous,  the  most 
widespreading,  the  most  Insidious  Is  the  lowering 
of  the  tone  of  Government.  One  Is  often  asked  why 
It  is  that  so  little  of  the  best  ability  of  the  country, 
so  little  of  Its  best  character,  finds  Its  way  Into  the 
political  life  of  the  United  States.  A  moment's  re- 
flection supplies  the  answer.  It  Is  because  few  men 
of  high  abilities,  few  men  of  high  character,  will 
put  their  abilities  and  their  character  In  mortgage 
to  their  inferiors.  To  represent  the  people  Is  an 
ambition  which  could  claim  the  service  of  the  ablest 
and  most  upright  men  In  the  country;  to  be  the 
people's  tool,  to  take  part  In  public  life  only  as 
the  obedient  servant  of  every  whim  and  passion  by 
which  the  popular  will  Is  swayed.  Is  an  ambition 
which  can  appeal  to  few  men  who  are  not  circum- 
scribed by  their  Intellectual  and  moral  defects. 

THE   RHAPSODICAL  ELEMENT  IN  GOVERNMENT 

I  apply  the  word  "rhapsodical"  to  a  number  of 
very  common  reactions  toward  Government  and  to- 
ward matters  closely  related  to  It. 

It  Is  rhapsodical.  In  my  view,  to  describe  Govern- 
ment In  terms  of  its  own  description  of  Itself,  in- 
stead of  in  terms  of  what  it  Is. 

It  Is  rhapsodical  to  deduce  the  effects  of  Govern- 


lo    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

ment  from  an  examination  of  its  structure,  and  to 
reject  in  regard  to  its  structure  every  principle  in- 
duced from  an  examination  of  its  actual  effects. 

It  is  rhapsodical  to  accept  the  facts  of  material 
progress    as    evidence    of    moral    and    intellectual 

progress. 

It  is  rhapsodical  to  believe  that  Government  can 
dispense  a  statutory  substitute  for  human  character, 
and  a  statutory  equalization  of  ability. 

It  is  rhapsodical  to  believe  that  any  formal  ele- 
ment in  Government  can  dominate  the  elements 
which  depend  upon  the  human  equation. 

It  is  rhapsodical  to  believe  that  you  can  get  a 
sound  educational  system  out  of  badly-paid  teachers. 

It  is  rhapsodical  to  believe  that  you  can  get  an 
efficient  administration  of  public  business  by  paying 
the  higher  ranks  of  the  Government  service  salaries 
which  private  business  pays  only  to  its  lower  ranks. 

It  is  rhapsodical  to  believe  that  you  can  give  a 
survival  value  to  mediocrity  and  have  survivors  who 
are  not  mediocre. 

It  is  rhapsodical  to  believe  that  you  can  enjoy  at 
the  same  time  all  the  advantages  of  order  and  of 
liberty,  of  private  control  and  of  Government  regu- 
lation, of  high  wages  and  of  cheap  commodities, 
of  competition  and  of  combination,  of  distributed 
authority  and  of  concentrated  responsibility.  In  a 
^ord — to  draw  upon  a  vernacular  which  has  done 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    i  i 

much  to  serve  the  cause  of  clear  thinking — it  is 
rhapsodical  to  believe  that  **you  can  have  it  both 
ways  at  once.'* 

There  is  not  one  of  these  rhapsodical  habits  and 
beliefs  which  has  not  exerted  a  powerful  influence 
upon  political  thought  and  upon  political  action  in 
the  United  States.  If  no  one  is  rhapsodical  in  all 
these  matters,  few  people  could  plead  **not  guilty'* 
on  every  count. 

The  intrusion  of  so  much  rhapsody  into  the  very 
prosaic  and  very  technical  business  of  conducting  a 
modern  Government  has  given  to  American  legisla- 
tion, to  American  administration,  and  to  American 
education,  a  quality  of  unreality  which  has  seriously 
impaired  their  ability  to  deal  effectively  with  the 
very  real  problems  with  which  the  nation  is  now 
confronted. 

If  the  American  people  do  not  soon  apply  to 
their  public  affairs  a  good  deal  of  that  clear-headed- 
ness, ingenuity,  and  humor  for  which,  in  the  conduct 
of  their  private  affairs,  they  enjoy  such  a  high  and 
well-merited  reputation,  conditions  will  go  beyond 
the  point  where  these  qualities  will  suffice  to  provide 
a  remedy  for  them. 


GOVERNMENT   AS   AN    **UN-SCIENCE** 

The  present  state  of  Government  throughout  the 
greater  part  of  the  world  affords  a  spectacle  from 


12    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

which  reason  recoils.  In  this  domain  of  human 
activity  we  have  at  our  disposal  the  record  of  nearly 
three  thousand  years  of  experimentation,  and  of 
this  record  at  least  three  hundred  years  is  covered 
in  great  detail.  Nearly  twenty-four  centuries  have 
elapsed  since  Plato  and  Aristotle  discussed  at  im- 
mense length,  and  with  a  vision  and  acumen  which 
to  this  day  command  the  admiration  and  respect  of 
all  serious  students,  the  problems  which  society  pre- 
sents to  politics.  Before  either  of  these  philos- 
ophers was  born,  Aristophanes — the  Bernard  Shaw 
of  his  day — convulsed  Athenian  audiences  with  his 
satires  on  local  politics. 

It  is  surely  one  of  the  most  remarkable  phenomena 
in  the  history  of  the  human  race  that  the  science 
of  Government — which  for  more  than  twenty  cen- 
turies has  engaged  the  attention  of  the  most  pro- 
found and  capacious  minds,  which  has  enlisted  the 
sympathetic  interest  of  the  noblest  characters  in  all 
ages,  which  has  for  its  material  an  experimental 
record  so  vast  that  the  material  of  all  other  sciences 
is  insignificant  by  comparison — should  have  yielded 
results  so  unsatisfactory  that  there  is  scarcely  a 
Government  in  the  world  to-day  which  is  not  threat- 
ened with  radical  change  of  form  and  of  method,  if 
not  with  actual  destruction,  at  the  hands  of  an  exas- 
perated populace. 

And  yet,  strange  to  say,  no  series  of  facts  reveaj- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    13 

ing  any  phase  of  the  social  activities  of  man  points 
to  an  explanation  more  simple  than  that  which 
emerges  from  a  study  of  our  activities  in  Govern- 
ment. 

If  we  compare  the  methods  followed  in  the  study 
of  chemistry,  of  engineering,  of  surgery — fields  in 
which  the  most  stupendous  advances  have  been  made 
during  the  past  half-century — with  the  methods  em- 
ployed in  the  study  of  Government,  we  soon  discover 
the  reason  why  the  science  of  chemistry,  for  instance, 
has  advanced  while  the  science  of  Government  has 
stood  still,  or  even  retrograded. 
/-  The  student  of  chemistry  records  with  the  ut- 
[  most  minuteness  and  accuracy  the  exact  conditions 
of  his  experiment.  When  he  proceeds  to  describe 
his  results,  he  has  before  him  the  precise  nature  of 
the  material  he  employed,  the  precise  character  of 
his  reagents,  the  precise  consequences  which  fol- 
lowed the  application  of  the  latter  to  the  former. 
The  conclusions  he  announces  are  based  solely  upon 
his  actual  observations,  without  reference  to  whether 
they  will  be  popular  or  unpopular,  or  to  whether 
they  run  counter  to  long-accepted  theories  laid  down 
by  some  distinguished  predecessor. 

Most  ^'students''  of  Government  follow  an  entirely 
different  plan.  They  begin  by  assuming  to  be  true 
some  things  which  are  insusceptible  of  proof,  some 
things  which  have  never  been  proved,  and  some 


14    Demcx:racy  and  the  Human  Equation 

things  which  have  been  disproved.  They  then  pro- 
ceed to  discard  from  whatever  real  facts  they  have 
before  them  all  those  which  are  inconsistent  with 
their  a  priori  assumptions.  Finally  they  reach  such 
conclusions  as  might  be  expected  from  such  "inves- 
tigations" when  they  are  conducted  by  men  who 
know  that  if  their  conclusions  offend  popular  feeling 
they  will  certainly  incur  the  censure  of  popular 
opinion,  and  will  probably  find  their  ability  to  earn 
a  livelihood  injuriously  affected. 

The  significance  of  this  contrast  between  the 
methods  employed  in  studying  chemistry  and  those 
employed  in  studying  Government  is  not  disposed  of, 
as  many  people  believe  it  to  be  by  asserting  that  the 
reactions  of  the  inanimate  substances  which  form 
the  principal  material  of  the  chemist's  investigations 
are  amenable  to  a  logic  different  from  that  which 
applies  to  the  reactions  of  human  beings;  there  is 
a  difference  of  degree,  but  not  of  kind.  It  is  idle 
and  pernicious  to  pretend  that  because  human  re- 
actions in  the  field  of  politics  cannot  be  measured 
with  the  accuracy  which  the  microscope,  the  ther- 
mometer and  the  balance  insure  to  a  chemical  in- 
vestigation, they  cannot  be  measured  with  an  accu- 
racy quite  adequate  to  the  purpose  for  which  the 
measurement  is  undertaken. 

There  is  ample  material  to  disclose  the  causes  of 
revolutions,  and  the  symptoms  of  their  approach; 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    15 

the  effectiveness  or  ineffectiveness  of  the  criminal 
law;  the  comparative  merits  of  different  legislative, 
judicial  and  administrative  systems;  the  difference 
in  cost  between  one  method  and  another  of  carrying 
out  any  public  enterprise;  the  various  forms  of  pres- 
sure which  various  forms  of  taxation  exert  upon  a 
nation's  trade  and  industry;  the  results,  measured  in 
terms  of  social  utility,  of  different  kinds  of  educa- 
tion; the  effects  of  stimulating  agriculture  at  the 
expense  of  manufacture,  or  manufacture  at  the 
expense  of  agriculture. 

How  can  it  be  seriously  maintained  that  a  con- 
scientious examination,  on  a  scientific  method,  of 
all  the  material  which  could  be  assembled,  even  upon 
the  few  subjects  referred  to  above,  could  yield  no 
results  which  could  be  taken  as  '^proved,"  and  which 
could  be  used  as  the  working  hypotheses  of  a  science 
of  Government? 

Here  and  there  some  devoted  student  has  made 
a  careful  and  exhaustive  investigation  of  some  phase 
of  Government;  but  nearly  all  of  this  investigation 
has  been  historical  rather  than  scientific,  in  the  sense 
that  it  has  been  descriptive,  qualitative,  and  positive, 
Instead  of  analytical,  quantitative,  and  compara- 
tive. 

One  reason  why  we  have  so  little  scientific  mate- 
rial available  about  Government  is  that  all  scientific 
investigation  is  extremely  exacting,  and  very  costly, 


i6    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

and  that  most  of  the  writing  on  Government  has 
been  done  by  overworked  and  underpaid  university 
professors  who  have,  in  a  spirit  which  cannot  be 
too  highly  praised,  employed  their  scant  leisure  and 
their  slender  means  for  a  purpose  for  which,  if  there 
were  among  the  "benefacturing"  class  a  more  fre- 
quent association  of  sincerity,  intelligence  and  money, 
they   would   be    given    ample   time    and    generous 

recompense. 

As  things  now  are,  we  afford  the  peculiar  spec 
tacle  of  a  people  who  apply  twentieth  century  meth- 
ods to  twentieth  century  problems  in  engineering, 
in  chemistry,  in  medicine,  in  surgery,  in  industry,  in 
agriculture,  and  who,  in  Government,  approach  the 
problems  of  the  twentieth  century  with  the  theories 
and  the  implements  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The 
plain  fact  is  that  our  present  political  practice  is  no 
nearer  the  time  to  which  it  is  applied  than  would  be 
the  medical  practice  of  a  physician  who,  in  this  year 
of  grace,   should  prescribe  the   King's  Touch   for 

scrofula. 

The  actual  situation,  which  should  be  held  firmly 
in  the  mind  of  every  patriotic  and  thoughtful  citizen, 
is  that  the  only  people  in  the  United  States  to-day 
who  are  satisfied  with  the  condition  of  Government 
are  those  who,  from  Its  qualities  of  irresponsibility, 
I    amateurism  and  defective  technique,   derive   their 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    17 

I    ability  to  gratify  their  acquisitive  instincts  at  the 

1     expense  of  a  supine  public. 

The  essential  feature  of  the  present  unrest  is 
that  the  public  is  at  last  arousing  itself  from  the 
political  listlessness  which  is  at  the  root  of  the  de- 
fects and  abuses  in  Government  which  have  now 
assumed  the  proportions  of  an  intolerable  burden. 
This  unrest  is  in  Itself  an  encouraging  sign;  but  if 
its  issue  Is  to  be  constructive  reform  and  not  de- 
structive revolution,  there  will  have  to  be  a  very 
frank  examination  of  Its  causes,  a  very  resolute 
acceptance  of  the  results,  and  a  very  sincere  attempt 
to  make  them  the  axioms  of  a  new  practice  of 
Government. 

Just  so  long  as  people  hold  the  extravagant  views 
they  now  hold  about  what  Government  ought  to  do 
for  them,  and  about  what  it  can  do  for  them,  and 
the  absurd  views  they  now  hold  about  how  these 
things  should  be  done,  just  so  long  will  most  people 
labor  under  a  sense  of  injustice  and  Injury,  for  they 
are  expecting  to  get  from  a  Gov^ernment  what  they 

.   could  only  get  from  a  miracle,  and  what  they  could 

\  not  get  from  a  miracle  If  they  Insisted  that  It  should 

Lbe  a  statutory  miracle. 

The  remedy  for  this  state  of  affairs  lies  in  educa- 
tion. Now  that  the  elective  franchise  has  been  ex- 
tended so  as  to  Include  practically  the  whole  popula- 


i8    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

tlon  of  adult  citizens  the  time  is  ripe  to  begin  a 
qualitative  limitation  of  the  right  to  vote.  If  educa- 
tion in  citizenship  were  undertaken  seriously  in  all 
schools  and  colleges,  with  due  regard  to  the  vital  as 
well  as  to  the  formal  elements  in  Government,  an 
educational   qualification   could  be  required  of   the 

voter. 

The  adoption  of  such  a  plan  would  not  only  ele- 
vate the  conception  of  citizenship  and  improve  the 
quality  of  the  electorate,  it  would  also  greatly 
strengthen  the  position  of  those  who  realize  the 
urgent  need  of  rescuing  the  school  system  from  its 
present  deplorable  condition. 

The  general  effect  on  Government  of  substituting 
a  qualitative  for  a  purely  quantitative  scheme  of 
political  agency  would  be  highly  beneficial.  It  is  too 
much  to  expect  that  there  can  ever  be  any  wide 
recognition  of  Government  as  an  applied  science  of 
politics  so  long  as  any  person,  however  stupid  or 
ignorant  he  may  be,  is  recognized  as  being  fit  to 
share  in  the  determination  of  public  policy  and  in 
the  administration  of  public  affairs. 

In  Chapters  IV  and  V  the  reader  will  find  a  brief 
discussion  of  the  influence  exerted  respectively  by 
heredity  and  by  environment  in  the  determination  of 
mental  and  moral  traits.  The  arguments  are  not 
susceptible  to  further  condensation.  The  conclusion 
to  be  drawn  from   them  is  that  the  influence  of 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    19 

heredity  greatly  outweighs  that  of  environment. 
The  importance  of  this  conclusion  cannot  be  over- 
estimated. If  further  research  should  establish  this 
hypothesis  as  a  natural  Law  it  would  be  necessary  to 
make  a  number  of  radical  adjustments  in  our  con- 
ceptions of  political  agency,  of  education,  of  legal 
and  of  social  responsibility. 


A 


IB 


CHAPTER  I 


WHO  is  satisfied — I  will  not  say  well  satisfied, 
but  satisfied  at  all — with  the  present  state 
of  Government? 

Are  the  agricultural  interests  satisfied  with  it? 
Are  the  industrial  interests?  Is  skilled  labor  satis- 
fied with  it?  Is  capital?  Are  those  whose  social 
contribution  is  intelligence  satisfied  with  it?  Are 
those  whose  contribution  is  muscle?  Is  the  indi- 
vidual considered  as  a  producer  satisfied  with  it? 
Is  the  individual  considered  as  a  consumer?  Are 
those  who  bear  the  burden  of  an  oppressive  taxa- 
tion satisfied  with  it?  Are  those  upon  whom  the 
proceeds  of  this  taxation  are  lavished? 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  only  people 
in  the  self-governing  portions  of  the  world  who  are 
to-day  satisfied  with  the  state  of  Government  are 
those  who  from  the  incompetence  or  from  the  cor- 
ruption of  government  secure  the  opportunity  to 
amass  power  and  wealth  at  the  expense  of  the  gen- 
eral welfare,  and  those  who  regard  these  qualities 
in  it  as  the  most  effective  arguments  in  favor  of 
revolution. 


21 


22    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

It  is  surely  one  of  the  most  remarkable  phenomena 
in  the  history  of  the  human  race  that  a  science  which 
for  more  than  twenty  centuries  has  engaged  the 
attention  of  the  most  profound  and  capacious  minds, 
which  has  enlisted  the  sympathetic  interest  of  the 
noblest  characters,  which  has  for  its  material  an  ex- 
perimental record  so  vast  that  the  material  of  all 
other  sciences  is  insignificant  by  comparison,  should 
have  yielded  results  so  unsatisfactory  that  there  is 
scarcely  a  Government  in  the  world  which  is  not  at 
this  moment  threatened  with  radical  change  of  form 
and  method,  if  not  with  actual  destruction,  at  the 
hands  of  an  exacerbated  populace. 

That  our  present  state  should  be  what  it  is  after 
nineteen  centuries  of  Christian  teaching,  after  a 
hundred  years  of  industrial  development,  after  sev- 
eral generations  of  popular  education,  must  afford 
to  all  intelligent  and  informed  minds  food  for  the 
most  disturbing  reflection,  and  cause  for  the  gravest 
alarm. 

The  most  significant  element  in  the  situation  is 
not  that  which  derives  its  interest  from  the  portrayal 
of  the  confusion  into  which  Government  has  fallen, 
of  the  exasperation  which  pervades  the  mental  atti- 
tude of  all  classes,  of  the  physical  distress  which  Is, 
as  it  always  has  been,  the  real  foundation  of  popular 
discontent.  What  endows  the  position  with  its  most 
serious  perils  is  that  what  we  observe  around  us 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    2^^ 

to-day  is  the  net  product  of  all  the  extravagant 
promises  of  human  betterment  trumpeted  to  the 
world  for  more  than  a  century  by  the  hierarchs 
of  religion,  of  politics,  of  education,  of  industrialisni^ 
and  of  philanthropy. 

Religion  was  to  make  people  good,  education  was 
to  make  them  wise,  politics  was  to  make  them  free, 
industrialism  was  to  make  them  rich,  and  philan- 
thropy was  to  take  care  of  the  exceptions  which 
prove  the  rule.  Now,  everybody  knows  that  the 
majority  of  people  are  neither  good,  nor  wise,  nor 
free,  nor  rich;  but  what  is  much  less  generally 
known  is  that,  if  these  adjectives  are  employed  with 
a  strict  regard  for  their  true  meaning,  the  majority 
of  people  are  neither  better,  wiser,  freer,  nor  richer 
than  their  ancestors  were  two  thousand  years  ago. 

Are  they  better  in  the  sense  that  they  are  less 
under  the  dominion  of  greed,  lust,  envy  and  malice? 
Are  they  wiser  in  the  sense  that  the  progress  of 
knowledge  has  made  them  more  amenable  to  the 
appeal  of  reason,  and  less  to  the  appeal  of  the 
emotions?  Are  they  freer  in  the  sense  that  the 
pressure  exerted  upon  them  by  the  elusive  forces 
of  modern  industrial  and  social  conditions  Is  less 
galling  to  them  than  was  that  of  the  more  tangible 
slavery  of  ancient  times  to  their  forbears.  Are  they 
richer  in  the  sense  that  with  a  thousand  conveniences 
at  their  service   which   formerly   the   wealth   of   a 


24    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

Croesus  could  not  command,  they  have  narrowed  the 
gulf  which  separates  desire  from  attainment,  or  in 
the  sense  that  their  tenure  of  decent  existenc?e  from 
day  to  day  Is  endowed  with  that  security  which  is 
the  most  important  factor  in  happiness? 

In  some  respects,  indeed,  man  is  now  more  for- 
tunate than  he  has  been  in  any  other  age.  For  the 
extremity  of  his  physical  suffering  the  chemist  has 
provided  anodynes;  for  the  satisfaction  of  his  mind 
the  printing-press  has  opened  the  boundless  field  of 
letters;  for  his  entertainment  the  ingenuity  of  in- 
ventors has  placed  at  his  disposal  every  sound  which 
charms  the  ear,  and  every  sight  which  charms  the 
eye;  to  his  comfort  and  luxury  the  remotest  regions 
of  the  globe  despatch  their  contribution;  his  days 
have  been  lengthened  by  the  physician  and  by  the 
surgeon;  the  obstacles  which,  for  countless  cen- 
turies, time  and  space  interposed  between  man  and 
man  have  been  swept  aside  by  the  engineer;  and  the 
air,  the  sea  and  the  land  have  become  the  highways 
of  an  ever-broadening  human  intercourse. 

That  these  advantages  are  widespread  over  the 
world,  that  they  are  enjoyed  by  the  rich  and  by  the 
poor,  some  of  them,  even,  by  the  destitute,  has  led 
to  the  popular  acceptance  of  an  utterly  erroneous 
belief  that  the  nature  of  man  has,  in  modern  times, 
experienced  a  general  and  rapid  elevation,  that  alike 
In  character  and  ability  his  progress  has  been  such 


{ 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    25 

as  to  discredit  all  argument  based  upon  human  his- 
/  tory,  and  to  justify  a  serene  confidence  in  an  immi- 
l  nent  millennium. 

If  any  one  cause,  more  than  another,  has  con- 
tributed to  the  present  appalling  condition  of  the 
world,  if  there  is  one  which  has  done  more  than 
any  other  to  withhold  from  the  use  of  mankind 
that  nourishing  harvest  which  observation  fertilizes 
in  the  soil  of  experience,  It  Is  that  blind  optimism 
which  discounts  every  disagreeable  fact,  as  having 
no  more  than  a  casual  and  transitory  significance, 
and  accepts  every  agreeable  fact  as  the  expression 
of  an  irresistible  force  for  good. 

The  arguments  of  the  optimists  have  been  ad- 
vanced with  warmth,  with  ingenuity,  with  persist- 
ence;  and  as  their  general  quality  is  such  that  they 
reassure  the  Ignorant,  console  the  mediocre,  flatter 
the  vain  and  bewilder  the  stupid,  they  have  rallied 
to  their  standard  a  vast  army  of  genial  adherejits./ 
So  great  Is  the  proportion  of  humanity  which  has 
fallen  under  their  spell  that  the  almost  imperceptible 
minority  which  prefers  any  truth,  however  painful, 

Lto  any  falsehood,  however  gratifying.  Is  branded  as 
materialistic,  cynical,  and  reactionary. 

The  fact  Is  that  so  far  as  human  beings  are 
thinkers  they  fall  into  two  distinct  groups — the 
rhapsodists  and  the  realists.  The  former  turn  their 
eager  faces  toward  the  future,  and  encourage  their 


I 


lifil 


m 


1 


26    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

hopes  to  paint  upon  the  unwoven  canvas  of  to- 
morrow (the  rich  landscape  of  their  desire;  the 
latter  scrutinize  the  unalterable  engravement  of 
yesterday,  in  the  confident  assurance  that  upon  that 
chart  alone  can  a  true  course  be  laid  for  human 
advancement. 

It  is  from  the  standpoint  of  the  realist  that  the 
IP  present  volume  is  written;  and  the  opinions  it  ad- 
vances are  not,  therefore,  based  upon  what  we  hope 
Government  may  become  during  the  next  two  thou- 
sand years,  but  upon  what  it  has  been  during  the 
past  two  thousand,  and  upon  what  it  is  now.  If  it 
is  charged  that  such  a  treatment  is  fundamentally 
unsound,  because  it  lacks  idealism,  my  reply  must  be 
that  the  unsoundness  of  most  of  the  literature  of 
Government  is  due  chiefly  to  the  vicious  habit  of 
^mistaking  fact  for  idea,  and  idea  for  fact;  that 
facts  are  facts;  and  that  the  only  useful  function 
which  idealism  can  perform  in  relation  to  them  is 
to  accept  them  for  what  they  are,  and  from  that 
point  endeavor  to  make  future  facts  more  agreeable 
to  our  conception  of  what  they  ought  to  be. 

In  the  ship  of  state  the  place  for  idealism  is  not 
in  the  sails  from  which  the  vessel  secures  its  move- 
ment, but  at  the  helm  which  guides  it  towards  its 
destination. 

Since  **The  Ship  of  State"  is  an  accepted  figure 
for   Government,    the    analogy    may   be    extended. 


j 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    27 

The  captain  of  a  ship  must  always  keep  in  mind  the 
port  for  which  he  is  sailing;  but  the  mate  must 
always  trim  his  yards  and  reef  or  loose  his  sails 
with  reference  to  the  actual  conditions  of  the 
|We^ther.  If  the  captain  should  leave  port  with  no 
particular  destination  in  view,  if  he  should  insist 
upon  sailing  toward  any  point  for  which  the  wind 
was  favorable  from  day  to  day,  he  could  always 
make  a  sailing  record,  but  he  could  never  reach  a 
<^ harbor,  except  by  some  unexpectable  stroke  of  luck, 
and  if  he  did  reach  a  harbor  he  might  find  that  his 
cargo  was  wholly  unsuited  to  the  needs  of  the 
country. 

If  the  mate,  in  face  of  a  rapidly  falling  barometer 
and  a  ragged  wall  of  livid  cloud  to  windward,  should 
keep  full  sail  on  his  ship,  because  the  sea  was  now 
calm  and  had  been  calm  last  week,  and  because  he 
hoped  it  would  be  calm  next  week,  the  ship  would 
soon  be  drifting  about,  a  dismasted  hulk. 

Let  us  make  another  supposition.  Before  the 
ship  leaves  port  the  captain  calls  all  hands  aft  and 
addresses  them  thus:  "We  are  assembled  aboard 
this  ship  in  pursuit  of  the  common  purpose  which 
is  defined  in  our  charter.  As  our  united  effort  is 
to  be  devoted  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  task 
which  we  have  voluntarily  assumed,  it  is  impossible 
for  me  to  believe  that  any  one  of  us  can  harbor  a 
thought  inimical  to  the   achievement  of  our  aim. 


II 


i 


28    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

Our  united  success  will  gratify  the  feelings  and 
advance  the  true  interest  of  each  of  us;  and  the 
consequences  of  failure  would  fall  heavily  upon  one 
as  upon  another.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  if  I  should 
fail  to  give  each  of  you  an  equal  share  in  the  man- 
agement of  this  enterprise  I  should  exhibit  a  dis- 
trust of  your  honesty  of  intention  or  of  your  ability 
in  action.  Such  distrust,  I  need  hardly  remind  you, 
would  create  aboard  our  vessel  a  condition  of  dis- 
cord which  could  have  no  other  outcome  than  to 
betray  the  hopes  which  unite  us  in  our  undertaking. 
*'May  I  not  assure  you,  therefore,  that  your  full, 
equal,  and  enthusiastic  cooperation  in  our  plan  is, 
in  my  view,  the  most  important  element  in  the  situa- 
tion. Indeed,  I  will  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  I  should 
regard  failure,  with  your  cooperation,  as  a  result 
far  more  pregnant  of  promise  to  humanity  than 
success  without  it.  I  must  beg  you  to  believe  that 
in  saying  this  I  am  at  once  moved  by  the  deepest 
emotion  and  sustained  by  the  most  profound  con- 
viction; and  I  make  this  appeal  to  you  with  high 
confidence,  because  the  thought  would  be  unendur- 
able to  me  that  there  was  not  ever  present  in  your 
minds,  as  there  is  ever  present  in  mine,  the  inspir- 
ing belief  that  history  will  esteem  our  actions  for 
the  humane  qualities  with  which  we  endow  them, 
rather  than  measure  them  by  the  base  standard  of 


I: 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    29 

material   achievement.     As   the   poet   has   so    well 
said: 

**  *Oh,  better  far,  to  fail,  if  pure  your  heart, 
Than  reach  success  by  using  wisdom's  chart.' 

"The  most  satisfactory  method  by  which  our 
unity  of  thought,  our  comradeship  of  action,  could 
be  established  and  preserved,  by  which  we  could 
assure  to  ourselves  that  close  and  continuing  con- 
tact between  mind  and  mind  which  is  the  living 
spirit  of  all  true  service,  would  be  to  gather  to- 
gether in  friendly  counsel  upon  one  day  in  every 
week,  so  that  each  of  us  in  turn  might  deliver  to 
all  the  ripe  fruit  of  his  meditation;  each,  of  course, 
as  eager  to  receive  as  to  impart  instruction. 

**In  such  an  atmosphere — bright  with  our  com- 
mon hopes,  warm  with  our  common  feelings,  rich 
I  with  our  common  thought — there  could  live  no 
\4jvalry  save  that  of  helpfulness.  But,  alas,  the  stern 
conditions  imposed  upon  us  by  our  profession  pre- 
clude the  employment  of  this  method  of  direct  gov- 
ernance. One  of  us  must  be  at  the  wheel,  another 
on  the  look-out,  others  may  have  been  requested  to 
go  aloft  and  reef  the  fore  topsail,  the  cook  may  be 
unable  to  leave,  even  for  a  brief  space  of  time,  his 
duties  in  the  galley. 

**For  these  reasons,  the  force  of  which  is,  I  am 
sure,  clear  to  each  of  us,  it  has  become  necessary 


/  m 


) 


Hi 


30    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

for  me  to  devise  another  method.  This  I  will  now 
lay  before  you,  for  your  approval  or  amendment 
— and  so  on;  leading  to  the  adoption  of  a  Ship's 
j  Constitution  embodying  the  principles  of  Represen- 
Ltative  Republicanism,  and  separate  Constitutions  for 
the  starboard  and  for  the  port  watch,  each  differing 
from  the  others  in  some  important  particulars. 

Later  in  the  voyage  it  is  decided  that  the  repre- 
sentative system  does  not  interpret  with  sufficient 
sensitiveness  the  changing  mood  of  the  ship*s  com- 
pany; and  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum  and  the 
Recall  are  set  up. 

The  foregoing  travesty  of  sea-life  is  clearly  gro- 
tesque and  ridiculous  in  every  particular.  If,  how- 
ever, we  work  back  from  this  comedy,  and  weigh 
Its  elements  in  the  scale  of  our  political  practice, 
candor  will  compel  us  to  admit  that  burlesque  is 
turned  to  sober  reality,  comedy  to  tragedy,  and 
that,  as  a  matter  of  plain  fact,  the  arrangements 
we  sanction  on  board  the  Ship  of  State  are  even 
more  fantastic  than  those  which  fancy  has  ascribed 
to  the  Ship  of  Commerce. 

The  first  point  made  was  that  the  captain  must 
always  keep  in  mind  the  port  for  which  he  is  sail- 
ing. In  regard  to  this  his  charter  is  absolutely 
clear;  he  Is  to  make  Callao,  or.  It  may  be,  Calcutta. 
For  what  port,  then.  Is  the  Ship  of  State  bound? 
So  far  as  the  United  States  Is  concerned,  the  Ship's 


il 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    31 

destination  Is  specified,  and  the  objects  of  the  voy- 
age  are  defined,  In  the  second  paragraph  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  In  the  Preamble 
to  the  Constitution.  Upon  what  coast,  bounding 
the  vast  ocean  of  life,  Is  this  port  to  be  found? 
Amongst  the  unnumbered  aims  of  humanity,  what 
are  these  most  cherished  objects? 

"We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all 
men  are  created  equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by 
their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable  Rights,  that 
among  these  are  Life,  Liberty  and  the  pursuit  of 
Happiness.  That  to  secure  these  rights.  Govern- 
ments are  instituted  among  Men,  deriving  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed,  That 
whenever  any  Form  of  Government  becomes  de- 
structive of  these  ends,  it  is  the  Right  of  the  People 
to  alter  or  to  abolish  it,  and  to  Institute  a  new  Gov- 
ernment,  laying  its  foundation  on  such  principles  and 
organizing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall 
seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  Safety  and  Happi- 


ness. 

**We,  the  People  of  the  United  States,  In  Order 
to  form  a  more  perfect  Union,  establish  Justice, 
insure  domestic  Tranquillity,  provide  for  the  com- 
mon  defence,  promote  the  general  Welfare,  and 
secure  the  Blessings  of  Liberty  to  ourselves  and  our 
Posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution 
for  the  United  States  of  America." 


32    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

In  the  whole  course  of  man's  long  and  arduous 
pilgrimage  the  far  horizon  has  never  glowed  with 
a  promise  more  fair,  more  nobly  emblazoned,  more 
refreshing  to  the  spirit,  more  urgent  of  high  en- 
deavor,  than  that  which  lies  in  these  austere  phrases. 
But  what  if  these  phrases  are  taken  from  their 
shining  emplacement  upon  the  distant  hills  of  hope, 
and  are  set  upon  that  turbulent  ocean  of  human 
conflict  which  beats  around  their  base? 

"All  men  are  created  equal."  Where  shall  we 
find  this  equality?  In  health?  In  physical  strength? 
In  intelligence?  In  knowledge?  In  morals?  In 
benevolence?    In  desire? 

What  is  the  fact?  It  is  that  the  highest  measure 
of  equality  among  human  beings  is  to  be  found  in 
the  lowest  types  of  savages;  and  that  every  step 
which  man  has  made  upward  from  savagery  has 
made  more  apparent  the  terrible  inequalities  be- 
tween man  and  man  at  the  hour  of  birth. 

"All  men  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  cer- 
tain unalienable  rights.  Among  these  are  Life, 
Liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  Happiness." 

What  is  an  unalienable  right?  It  is  one  which 
cannot  be  taken  away  or  given  up.  Of  the  three 
rights  specified  above,  only  one  is  capable  of  pre- 
cise definition— Life.  Who  will  support  the  pre- 
posterous statement  that  Life  is  not  taken  away  or 
given  up? 


iar-.iL  ./-^.-^ 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    33 

Is  Liberty  unalienable?  Where  is  Liberty  de- 
fined?  It  is  defined  only  in  the  human  spirit;  and 
its  definitions  must,  therefore,  be  as  numerous  as 
the  inhabitants  of  the  globe.  But  this  view  is  too 
broad  to  serve  as  the  basis  of  discussion.  Let  us 
take  a  narrower  view.  Is  Liberty  embodied  in 
the  right  of  free  speech?  Is  it  embodied  in  the 
right  of  dissent?  Is  it  embodied  in  the  right  to 
drink  alcohol?  Is  it  embodied  in  the  right  to  work 
for  a  livelihood?     Is  it  embodied  in  the  right  of 

majority  rule? 

We  know  that  people  are  punished  for  speakmg 
freely,  that  they  are  punished  for  drinking  alcohol, 
that  they  are  punished  for  dissent,  and  that  they 
are  prevented  by  force  from  working  for  a  liveli- 
hood, that  they  are  often  ruled  by  a  minority. 

Is  the  right  to  pursue  Happiness  unalienable? 
Where  is  happiness  defined?  It  is  defined  in  human 
desire.  It  assumes  Innumerable  forms,  and  its  es- 
sence can  best  be  stated  in  terms  of  its  opposite. 
Unhappiness,  then,  is  the  failure  to  attain  the  ob- 
jects of  desire.  It  may  have  been  a  sense  of  the 
infinite  complexity  of  desire  which  led  the^  framers 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  insert^  in 
connection  with  Happiness,  almost  the  only  qualify- 
ing phrase  wHich  dims  the  magnificent  audacity  of 
that  great  document.  Man  is  not  declared  to  be 
endowed  by  the  Creator  with  the  right  to  Happi- 


1 ; 


*  > 


34    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

ness,  but  only  with  the  right  to  pursue  Happiness. 
Is  the  right  to  pursue  Happiness  unalienable? 
May  one  pursue  it  along  the  road  of  anarchy,  of 
autocracy,  of  usury,  of  political  corruption.  We 
know  these  roads  are  closed,  in  theory  if  not  in 

practice. 

'^Whenever  any  Form  of  Government  becomes 
destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people 
to  alter  or  to  abolish  it.''  If  I  am  convinced  that  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  has  destroyed  Lib- 
erty, has  taken  away  the  right  to  live,  has  denied  me 
the  free  pursuit  of  Happiness,  may  I  advocate  the 
overthrow  of  the  Government  in  its  present  form, 
and  the  establishment  in  its  place  of  a  Government 
by  Soviets,  or  by  a  monarch?  I  may  not.  May 
a  hundred  people,  a  thousand,  a  million,  ten  million? 

They  may  not. 

When  we  examine  the  Preamble  to  the  Consti- 
tution we  immediately  detect  beneath  its  appearance 
of  clarity  the  same  quality  of  vagueness  which  char- 
acterizes the  passage  I  have  quoted  from  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence. 

A  more  perfect  union  is  to  be  formed.  What  is 
a  more  perfect  union?  Is  a  union  more  perfect  when 
its  forty-eight  constituent  parts  establish  laws  of 
widely  differing  effect  upon  questions  as  fundamental 
as  land-tenure,  divorce,  inheritance,  and  labor  dis- 
putes?    Is  it  more  perfect  when  matters  of  nation- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    35 

wide  concern — the  public  health,  education,  the 
care  of  the  insane,  for  instance — are  left  without 
any  common  direction  which  would  serve  the  com- 
mon interest?  A  more  perfect  union.  More  per- 
fect than  what? 

Justice  is  to  be  established.  What  is  Justice? 
Does  it  lie  in  the  equal  administration  of  the  law? 
It  may  be  withheld  by  the  rules  of  procedure,  and, 
in  criminal  cases,  it  may  be  thwarted  by  the  abuse 
of  the  pardoning  power.  Does  it  lie  in  the  equality 
of  economic  and  social  opportunity?  What  does  a 
theory  of  equal  economic  opportunity  mean  in  a 
practical  world  of  unequal  economic  units?  What 
does  a  theory  of  equal  social  opportunity  mean  in 
a  practical  world  of  unequal  social  units?  Is  the 
spirit  of  Justice  explained  in  the  maxim  "An  eye  for 
an  eye,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth,"  or  in  the  injunction  to 
**Temper  Justice  with  Mercy,''  or  in  the  advice  to 
**Be  Just  before  you  are  Generous"?  Is  it  to  be 
found  in  the  principle  of  the  closed  shop,  or  in  that 
of  the  open  shop?  Does  Justice  mean  that  eacR 
man  shall  be  protected  to  the  full  in  his  enjoyment 
of  those  things  which  his  skill,  his  industry,  his 
prudence  have  secured  for  him,  or  does  it  mean  that 
the  right  to  have  and  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  skill, 
of  industry,  and  of  prudence  shall  be  conferred  by 
law  upon  those  who  are  neither  skillful,  industrious, 
nor  prudent?     Does  Justice  demand  that  idleness 


ll 


ii 


36    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

shall  share  in  the  harvest  of  toil,  that  extravagance 
shall  spend  the  savings  of  thrift,  that  incompetence 
shall  be  endowed  with  efficiency's  estate? 

Domestic  tranquillity  is  to  be  insured.  What  is 
domestic  tranquillity?  Is  it  that  state  which  ensues 
upon  the  suppression  of  public  disorder  by  the  power 
of  the  executive?  Is  it  that  state  which,  in  the 
dereliction  of  executive  power,  ensues  upon  the 
declaration  of  a  strike,  that  state  in  which  the 
national  life  is  paralyzed,  and  riot  spreads  over  the 
land?  Is  the  spirit  of  tranquillity  to  be  diffused  by 
maintaining  order  at  the  expense  of  liberty,  or  by 
maintaining  liberty  at  the  expense  of  order? 

The  common  defense  is  to  be  provided  for.  In 
what  does  the  common  defense  consist?  Does  it 
consist  in  repelling  foreign  attack?  Does  it  consist 
in  attacking  a  foreign  power,  on  the  principle  of 
the  offensive-defensive?  Is  the  provision  for  com- 
mon defense  to  take  the  form  of  universal  military 
training?  Is  it  to  take  the  form  of  a  highly  trained, 
fully  equipped  and  ever-prepared  army?  Is  it  to 
take  the  form  of  condemning  military  science  in 
the  days  of  safety,  as  being  inconsistent  with  the 
spirit  of  Democracy,  and,  in  the  day  of  peril,  exalt- 
ing it  as  Democracy's  savior?  Is  the  common  de- 
fense to  be  provided  for  by  making  the  test  of 
patriotism  the  refusal  to  prepare  for  war,  and  the 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    37 

test  of  heroism  the  willingness  to  go  to  war  un- 
prepared? 

The  general  Welfare  is  to  be  promoted.  Upon 
what  elements  does  the  general  Welfare  rest?  Does 
it  rest  upon  the  immediate  and  direct  elements  of 
civil  order,  freedom  of  contract,  the  protection  of 
life  and  property,  the  give  and  take  of  unrestricted 
competition,  the  restraints  of  wise  and  humane  leg- 
islation? Does  it  rest  upon  the  less  tangible  ele- 
ments of  intelligence,  knowledge,  honesty,  nobility, 
guidance,  regulation,  and  discipline?  To  whatever 
extent  it  depends  upon  the  former  elements,  to  what 
extent  can  it  be  promoted  if  the  latter  elements  are 

lacking? 

The   blessings    of   Liberty    are    to   be    secured. 

Liberty  I 

**In  no  other  name  do  men  so  readily  fight  as  in 
the  name  of  liberty.  There  is  in  human  nature  a 
profound  and  inexpungable  love  of  the  freedom 
which  men  instinctively  hold  to  be  natural  with  that 
nature,  and  there  is  required  no  more  than  the  threat 
of  restriction  for  this  love  to  emerge  ideally  in  the 
sentiment  of  liberty  and  the  will  to  sacrifice  for  it 
all  other  goods.  .  .  .  But  though  the  sentiment  of 
liberty  be  thus  deep  and  moving,  the  understanding 
of  it  is  rare,  and  its  realization  is  rarer  still.  *Man 
is  born  free,  and  everywhere  he  is  in  chains.*  "    Thus 


ii 


38    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

writes  Professor  Hartley  Burr  Alexander  in  an  es- 
say on  **Essential  Liberty.'*  In  another  essay,  on 
**Liberty  and  Democraqr/'  he  says:  *'No  one,  I 
think,  can  comprehend  American  history  without 
some  feeling  for  the  force  with  which  the  symbol 
of  liberty  appeals  to  the  American  mind;  but  it 
would  be  a  rash  man  who  should  assert  that  in 
America,  liberty,  in  any  intelligible  and  definable 
form  has  ever  been  realized." 

Now,  I  am  well  aware  that  to  many  of  my  read- 
ers the  account  I  have  given  of  the  destination  of 
the  Ship  of  State  will  appear  even  more  fantastic 
than  what  I  have  said  about  the  voyage  of  the  Ship 
of  Commerce. 

It  will  be  asked:  Has  this  man  no  imagination? 
Can  he  not  see  that  the  passages  he  has  quoted  from 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  from  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  are  expressions  of 
idealism?  Can  he  not  understand  that  this  ideal- 
ism is  placed  exactly  where  he  himself  said  it  should 
be  placed,  at  the  helm  of  the  Ship  of  State?  By 
what  blindness  is  he  afflicted  that  it  is  not  plain  to 
him  that  the  port  he  is  so  anxious  to  find  on  the 
chart  of  Government  is  no  other  than  the  attain- 
ment of  the  ideals  he  has  discussed?  Why  does  he 
not  look  in  the  Articles  and  Amendments  of  the  Con- 
stitution for  the  sailing  directions  by  which  the  Ship 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    39 

of  State  is  to  be  guided  in  its  voyage  toward  the  har- 
bor of  attainment? 

That  is  where  I  now  propose  to  look. 

I  may  preface  my  search  by  recalling  to  the  read- 
er's attention  that  it  is  the  mate  of  the  Ship  of  Com- 
merce who  must  keep  in  contact  with  the  realities  of 
the  weather,  must  note  the  falling  barometer,  the 
threatening  clouds.  If  the  captain  sets  the  course, 
it  is  the  mate  who  must  see  that  the  man  at  the  wheel 
keeps  the  ship's  head  on  that  course,  must  so  trim 
his  yards  that  the  course  can  be  made,  and  must 
maintain  the  working  routine  upon  which  the  safe 
navigation  of  the  ship  and  the  order  and  comfort 
of  the  crew  depend. 

Aboard  the  Ship  of  State  the  functions  of  the 
captain  are  performed  by  the  Supreme  Court,  and  ^ 
those  of  the  mate  are  performed  by  the  compli- 
cated machinery  set  up  under  the  Constitution,  and 
by  the  officials  appointed  or  elected  to  keep  it  in 
motion.  To  these  officials — executive,  judicial,  and 
legislative — is  assigned  the  duty  of  seeing  that  the 
machinery  is  employed  only  for  purposes  which  are 
Constitutional,  and  is  operated  only  by  methods 
which  are  Constitutional.  The  Constitutionality  of 
purpose  and  of  method  are  determined  by  the  ma- 
jority opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which,  at  the 
time  I  write,  is  composed  of  nine  judges. 


>  t 


40    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

It  Is  upon  what  is  stated  in  the  Articles  and 
Amendments  of  the  Constitution  that  these  judges 
are  to  decide,  when  any  specific  matter  is  brought 
before  them,  whether  any  law  duly  enacted  in  the 
United  States,  whether  it  be  Federal,  State,  or  Mu- 
nicipal, may  stand,  or  must  fall,  and  whether  any 
act  done  or  suffered  by  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  or  by  any  other  person  therein  residing,  is 
done  or  suffered  in  violation  of  the  Constitutional 
rights  of  the  parties. 

For  our  present  purpose  it  is  not  necessary  to 
enter  upon  a  minute  examination  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. It  will  suffice  if  some  of  its  general  charac- 
teristics are  considered,  and  one  or  two  specific 
points  discussed. 

The  first  general  characteristic  of  the  Constitu- 
tion which  impresses  itself  upon  the  notice  of  the 
observer  is  the  immense  amount  of  interpretation 
which  has  been  needed  to  clarify  its  meaning.  Dr. 
Hannis  Taylor,  in  his  monumental  work  on  "The 
Origin  and  Growth  of  the  American  Constitution,'* 
quotes  no  less  than  thirty-one  cases  in  which  the 
meaning  of  the  Preamble  has  been  the  subject  of 
legal  dispute.  To  the  lay  mind  no  part  of  the  Con- 
stitution appears  to  be  more  explicit  or  more  clearly 
phrased  than  the  first  paragraph  of  Section  X  of 
Article  I,  which  reads:  *'No  State  shall  enter  into 
any  Treaty,  Alliance,  or  Confederation;  grant  Let- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    41 

ters  of  Marque  and  Reprisal;  coin  Money,  emit 
Bills  of  Credit;  make  any  Thing  but  gold  and  sil- 
ver Coin  a  Tender  in  Payment  of  Debts;  pass  any 
Bill  of  Attainder,  ex  post  facto  Law,  or  Law  impair- 
ing the  Obligation  of  Contracts,  or  grant  any  Title 
of  Nobility'' ;  but  Dr.  Taylor  quotes  more  than  two 
hundred  and  fifty  cases  in  which  the  meaning  of  this 
single  paragraph  has  been  the  subject  of  legal  dis- 
pute. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  from  the 
first  word  of  the  Preamble  to  the  last  word  of  the 
Eighteenth  Amendment,  could  be  printed  in  clear 
type  within  the  compass  of  twenty  pages  of  this 
volume ;  it  would  require  more  than  twenty  thousand 
pages  of  the  same  size  to  take  the  record  of  the  de- 
cisions of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  in  which 
the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  is  construed. 

Another  striking  characteristic  of  the  Constitu- 
tion is  that  the  power  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  de- 
clare any  law  unconstitutional  carries  with  it  the 
power  to  determine  the  general  policy  of  the  na- 
tion in  matters  of  the  utmost  importance  and  of  the 
most  far-reaching  consequences. 

Those  who  remember  the  heated  controversy 
which,  twenty  years  ago,  raged  around  the  question 
of  whether  the  United  States  could  Constitutionally 
retain  sovereignty  over  the  Philippine  Islands  and 
Porto  Rico  without  making  them  either  States  or 


•1 


s 


42    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

Territories  of  the  Union,  will  remember  that  the 
issue  was  decided  in  the  affirmative  by  a  five  to 
four  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  a  case  hav- 
ing to  do  with  imports  from  the  Islands. 

It  is  clear  that  if  the  decision  had  been  in  the 
negative  the  alternative  presented  to  the  nation 
would  have  been  between  giving  up  the  Islands  and 
incorporating  them  in  the  political  system  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  well  within  the  range  of  possi- 
bility that,  faced  with  such  a  choice,  public  sentiment 
would  have  demanded  that  the  Islands  be  given  up. 
So,  this  grave  question  of  whether  the  United 
States  should  retain  in  its  purity  the  doctrine  of  gov- 
ernment of  the  people,  for  the  people,  by  the  peo- 
ple, or  should  dilute  it  with  the  principle  of  im- 
perialism, was  settled,  once  for  all,  by  the  opinion 
of  one  judge,  that  is  to  say,  by  the  opinion  of  one 
person  out  of  a  population  of  eighty  million,  and 
that  person  not  elected  by  the  people,  or  by  any 
group  of  them,  but  appointed  by  an  executive  officer 
of  the  Government.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  in 
history — outside  the  annals  of  despotism — any  in- 
stance in  which  a  decision  so  momentous  has  been 
left  to  the  infallibility  of  the  odd  man. 

No  matter  dealt  with  by  the  Constitution  is  of 
more  vital  concern  to  the  nation  than  that  referred 
to  in  the  first  sixteen  words  of  Section  IV  of  Ar- 
ticle IV,  which  read:     *The  United  States  shall 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    43 

guaranty  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a  Republican 
form  of  Government.  .  .  . ' 

Nothing  stands  out  with  greater  clearness  from 
a  study  of  the  present  condition  of  Government  in 
the  United  States  than  the  fact  that  the  States  of 
this  Union  are  not  governed  under  a  Republican 
form,  but  under  a  Democratic  form  which  is  con- 
stantly molding  itself  more  closely  to  the  perfect 
shape  of  the  thoroughly  discredited  and  deliberately 
discarded  Democracy  of  the  ancient  Greeks. 

The  fundamental  differences  between  a  Republi- 
can and  a  Democratic  form  of  Government  have 
been  obscured  chiefly  by  the  general  employment, 
by  political  writers  and  orators,  of  the  words  "Re- 
publican'* and  "Democratic''  In  this  connection  as 
though  they  were  synonymous. 

The  United  States  are  still,  ostensibly  at  least,  a 
Republic;  but  the  American  people,  we  have  been 
assured,  entered  the  V^ar  to  make  the  world  safe 
for  Democracy — not  for  Republicanism.  If  this 
statement  really  represented  the  fact  of  the  case  the 
future  would  hold  in  store  for  us  a  grievous  disap- 
pointment: the  world  can  be  made  safe  for  Repub- ) 
licanism;  it  cannot  be  made  safe  for  Democrac^;^ 

There  lies,  .of  course,  around  this  point  a  very 
inviting  field  for  definitional  dialectic.  I  resist  the 
temptation  to  enter  it,  because  Government  has  al- 
ready been  more  than  sufficiently  bedevilled  by  dia- 


i 


44    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

lectlcs.  I  will,  instead,  draw  the  distinction  be- 
tween Republicanism  and  Democracy  in  such  terms 
as  will  best  serve  to  exhibit  the  profound  and  ir- 
reconcilable differences  which  exist  between  them 
as  systems  of  Government. 

The  distinguishing  feature  of  Republicanism 
is  that  legislators  shall  be  representatives;  the 
distinguishing  feature  of  Democracy  is  that  legis- 
lators shall  be  delegates. 

A  legislative  Representative  is  a  man  whose  duty 
it  is  to  devote  his  own  knowledge,  his  own  abilities, 
his  own  judgment  to  the  conduct  of  public  affairs; 
a  Delegate  is  a  man  sent  to  the  capitol  by  the  ma- 
jority of  the  voters  to  register  their  will. 

In  voting  for  or  against  a  measure,  a  Representa- 
tive is  guided  by  his  own  opinion,  reached  after  leg- 
islative debate;  a  Delegate  is  guided  by  the  opin- 
ions of  other  people,  reached  before  legislative  de- 
bate. 

Assuming  equal  knowledge  and  intelligence  in 
each,  a  Representative  best  discharges  his  duties  by 
being  independent;  a  Delegate  by  being  subservient. 

Legislation  passed  by  Representatives  is  an  ex- 
pression of  judgment;  legislation  passed  by  Dele- 
gates  is  an  expression  of  will. 

The  issue  really  centers  around  two  points — elec- 
tion pledges  made  in  advance  in  respect  of  pending 
measures,  and  the  pressure  exerted,  after  election, 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    45 

upon  the  candidate  whose  promises  have  secured 
him  a  majority  at  the  polls. 

Concerning  these  points  Lord  Macaulay  wrote 
as  follows,  In  1832,  on  the  eve  of  an  election  In 
which  he  was  one  of  the  candidates  for  Leeds: — 

**The  practice  of  begging  for  votes  is,  as  It  seems 
to  me,  absurd,  pernicious,  and  altogether  at  vari- 
ance with  the  true  principles  of  representative  gov- 
ernment. To  request  an  honest  man  to  vote  accord- 
ing to  his  conscience  Is  superfluous.  To  request  him 
to  vote  against  his  conscience  is  an  insult.  I  trust 
that  the  great  and  intelligent  body  of  people  who 
have  obtained  the  elective  franchise  will  see  that 
seats  In  the  House  of  Commons  ought  not  to  be 
given,  like  rooms  In  an  almshouse,  to  urgency  of 
solicitation;  and  that  a  man  who  surrenders  his 
vote  to  caresses  and  supplications  forgets  his  duty 
as  much  as  If  he  sold  it  for  a  bank-note.  I  hope  to 
see  the  day  when  an  Englishman  will  think  It  as 
great  an  affront  to  be  courted  and  fawned  upon  In 
his  capacity  of  elector  as  in  his  capacity  of  jury- 
man. My  conduct  Is  before  the  electors  of  Leeds. 
My  opinions  shall  on  all  occasions  be  stated  to  them 
with  perfect  frankness.  If  they  approve  that  con- 
duct. If  they  concur  in  those  opinions,  they  ought, 
not  for  my  sake,  but  for  their  own,  to  choose  me 
as  their  member.  To  be  so  chosen,  I  should  Indeed 
consider  as  a  high  and  enviable  honor;  but  I  should 


46    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

think  it  no  honor  to  be  returned  to  Parliament  by 
persons  who,  thinking  me  destitute  of  the  requisite 
qualifications,  had  yet  been  wrought  upon  by  ca- 
jolery and  importunity  to  poll  for  me  in  spite  of 
their  better  judgment. 

*1  wish  to  add  a  few  words  touching  a  question 
which  has  lately  been  much  canvassed;  I  mean  the 
question  of  pledges.  In  this  letter,  and  in  every 
letter  which  I  have  written  to  my  friends  at  Leeds, 
I  have  plainly  stated  my  Opinions.  But  I  think  it, 
at  this  conjuncture,  my  duty  to  declare  that  I  will 
give  No  Pledges,  I  will  not  bind  myself  to  make 
or  to  support  any  particular  motion.  I  will  state 
as  shortly  as  I  can  some  of  the  reasons  which  have 
induced  me  to  form  this  determination.  The  great 
beauty  of  the  representative  system  is,  that  it  unites 
the  advantages  of  popular  control  with  the  advan- 
tages arising  from  a  division  of  labour.  Just  as  a 
physician  understands  medicine  better  than  an  ordi- 
nary man,  just  as  a  shoemaker  makes  shoes  better 
than  an  ordinary  man,  so  a  person  whose  life  is 
passed  in  transacting  affairs  of  state  becomes  a  bet- 
ter statesman  than  an  ordinary  man. 

**In  politics,  as  well  as  every  other  department  of 
life,  the  public  ought  to  have  the  means  of  checking 
those  who  serve  it.  If  a  man  finds  that  he  derives 
no  benefit  from  the  prescription  of  his  physician,  he 
calls  in  another.     If  his  shoes  do  not  fit  him  he 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    47 

changes  his  shoemaker.  But  when  he  has  called  in 
a  physician  of  whom  he  hears  a  good  report,  and 
whose  general  practice  he  believes  to  be  judicious,  ! 
it  would  be  absurd  in  him  to  tie  down  that  physi- 
cian to  order  particular  pills  and  particular  draughts. 
While  he  continues  to  be  the  customer  of  a  shoe- 
maker, it  would  be  absurd  in  him  to  sit  by  and  mete 
every  motion  of  that  shoemaker's  hand.  And  in  j 
the  same  manner,  it  would,  I  think,  be  absurd  in  him 
to  require  positive  pledges,  and  to  exact  daily  and 
hourly  obedience,  from  his  representative." 

All  this  will  seem  very  naive  to  a  generation  which 
accepts  rear-platform  oratory  by  political  candidates, 
the  unabashed  intrigue  of  paid  and  registered  lob- 
byists, and  the  massed  attack  on  legislators  by  night- 
letter.  Macaulay's  words,  however,  present  in  the 
most  concise  phraseology  the  principles  upon  which 
alone  Representative  Government  can  be  operated 
successfully,  if  it  is  assumed  that  its  chief  concern 
is  the  prudent,  honest,  and  efficient  administration 
of  public  affairs. 

The  question  of  whether  or  not  the  founders  of 
this  nation  intended  to  set  up  a  Republican,  as  op- 
posed to  a  Democratic,  form  of  Government,  was 
discussed  with, force  and  eloquence  in  a  public  ad- 
dress delivered  in  191 1  by  the  Hon.  Emmet  O'Neal, 
Governor  of  Alabama.    He  said,  in  part: — 

".  .  .  there  must  be  a  lawmaking  body  composed 


48    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

either  of  the  people  themselves,  acting  directly  in 
their  organic  capacity  or  through  chosen  representa- 
tives.    Fully  recognizing  that  fact,  the  wise  men 
who  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
after  mature  reflection,  thorough  investigation,  and 
debate,  unanimously  discarded  the  system  of  direct 
legislation  and  established  a  representative  Repub- 
lic as  contradistinguished  from  a  social  or  pure  de- 
mocracy.    The    warning    lessons    of    history    had 
taught  them  that  the  so-called  republics  of  ancient 
and  modern  times,  through  the  absence  of  the  rep- 
resentative principle,  had  ever  been  found,  as  Madi- 
son declared,   spectacles  of  turbulence  and  conten- 
tion, incompatible  with  personal  security  or  the  rights 
of    property.      They    agreed    with    the    sentiment 
voiced  by  Wilson  when  he  declared  that  the  doctrine 
,    of  representation  in  government,  which  was  alto- 
gether unknown  to  the   ancients,   was  essential  to 
u  every  system  that  can  possess  the  qualities  of  free- 
dom,  wisdom,   and  energy.     They  had  renounced 
the  divine  right  of  kings,  but  were  unwilling  to  es- 
tablish the  iivine  nght^oi  majorities.     Direct  action 
by  the  people  they  deprecated.'' 

Governor  O'Neal  had  in  mind.  It  is  true,  the 
threat  held  over  the  system  of  Representative  Gov- 
ernment by  the  agitation  in  favor  of  the  Initiative 
and  the  Referendum;  but  I  cannot  think  that,  if  they 
were  drafted  for  service  in  American  politics,  they 


tw 

1 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    49 

would  do  more  than  give  definite  form  and  Con- 
stitutional sanction  to  that  system  of  "direct"  legis- 
lation which  has  already  been  developed  in  the  coun- 
try through  the  pressure  of  organized  opinion — and 
usually  of  organized  minority  opinion — upon  the  in- 
dependence of  legislators. 

Finally,  as  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  my  read- 
ers will  not  be  unaware  that  a  considerable  litera- 
ture has  grown  up  around  the  difference  between 
Constitutional  theory  and  actual  practice  in  regard 
to  the  matters  covered  by  Section  I  of  Article  II — 
the  College  of  Electors,  and  the  inability  of  the 
President    to    discharge    his    duties;   by    the    First 
Amendment — freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press, 
and  the  right  of  peaceable  assembly;  by  the  Fourth 
Amendment — security   against  search   and  seizure, 
except  on  warrant  based  upon  probable  cause  and 
supported  by  oath;  by  Section  II  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment— the  number  of  representatives  in  Con- 
gress to  be  apportioned  according  to  the  number  of 
persons   in   each    State    actually    allozied    to   vote,- 
and  by  the  Fifteenth  Amendment— the  right  of  citi- 
zens to  vote  is  not  to  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the 
United  States  or  by  any  State  on  account  of  race, 
colot-,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

I  wish  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  in  what  I  have 
said  about  the  Constitution  there  is  no  suggestion 
that  it  does  not  hold  up  to  the  whole  world  the  mir- 


50    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

ror  of  noble  political  ideals.  What  I  have  at- 
tempted to  show  IS  that,  regarded  as  a  document  In 
which  are  embodied  the  sailing  directions  of  the 
Ship  of  State,  it  lacks  perfection  in  the  measure  that 
it  lacks  clearness;  that  of  two  interpretations  of  its 
meaning,  as  opposite  as  the  poles,  one  or  the  other 
may  be  set  up  as  a  rule  absolute  in  regard  to  national 
policy  by  the  opinion  of  a  single  judge;  and  that  in 
respect  of  some  matters  about  which  it  is  most  per- 
spicuous its  directions  are  not  being  followed  with 
scrupulous  fidelity. 

Let  me  now  take  up  the  view  of  those  who  laud 
the  wisdom  which  guided  the  framers  of  the  Con- 
stitution away  from  the  pitfall  of  attempting  to 
bind  posterity  with  the  chains  of  an  inflexible  po- 
litical formalism.  This  view  is,  in  effect,  that  the 
Constitution  lays  down  the  rules  governing  the 
grand  strategy  of  political  navigation,  and  that  the 
tactics,  as  being  affected  by  conditions  of  time  and 
locality— by  the  political  weather,  as  it  were— are 
left  to  the  decision  of  Congress  and  of  the  State 
legislatures. 

It  is  obvious,  to  pursue  our  analogy  of  the  ship, 
that  no  exercise  of  strategic  genius  on  the  part  of 
the  captain  will  bring  the  ship  to  port  if  the  sail- 
\  ing  tactics  are  so  poor  that  the  vessel  is  flung  upon 
a  lee  shore,  stranded  in  shoal  water,  or  capsized  in 
a  squall ;  that  matters  of  crowding  on  sail  in  order 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    51 

to  make  speed  in  a  fair  wind,  of  furling  sail  in  or- 
der to  take  speed  off  the  ship  in  foggy  weather,  of 
heaving  the  ship  to  in  a  violent  gale,  of  taking  fre-  j 
quent  soundings  when  approaching  a  sand-encum- / 
bered  estuary,  are  vital  to  a  seamanlike  handling  of  j 

the  vessel.  ^^ 

On  the  sea  of  politics  these  tasks  are  committed 
to  legislatures.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  legislator,  then, 
to  see  that  the  Ship  of  State  is  not  flung  on  the  lee 
shore  of  incompetent  and  extravagant  administra- 
tion, or  stranded  on  the  shoals  of  party  faction,  or 
capsized  in  the  squalls  of  civic  disorder;  that  laws 
urgently  necessary  to  meet  clear  and  immediate 
needs  are  quickly  enacted,  that  laws  concerning 
which  there  exists  wide  diversity  of  judgment 
amongst  those  capable  of  judging  should  be  passed 
only  after  careful  and  unprejudiced  enquiry  and  anx- 
ious deliberation. 

I  will  not  insult  the  reader's  intelligence  by  adduc- 
ing particular  instances  to  show  that  the  processes 
of  American  legislation  lack  the  qualities  I  have  in- 
dicated; any  attentive  reader  of  the  daily  press  could 
easily  compile  a  bulky  volume  made  up  of  nothing 
but  such  instances. 

It  is  sufficient  to  state,  what  is  a  matter  of  com- 
mon knowledge,  that  every  year  hundreds  of  laws 
are  passed  by  Congress  and  by  the  State  legisla- 
tures without  adequate  debate;  that  much  proposed 


52    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

legislation  is  defeated  through  factious  opposition; 
that  legislators  vie  with  one  another  in  their  efforts 
to  purchase  popularity  with  the  majority  of  the  vot- 
ers by  squandering  public  money  chiefly  supplied  by 
the  minority;  that  investigations  of  the  evils  which 
inevitably  flow  from  bad  legislation  is  offered  to  the 
people  as  a  substitute  for  that  good  legislation  which 
would  have  averted  the  evils,  and  that  many  of 
these  investigations  are  notoriously  insincere  and  in- 
efficient. 

To  conclude  my  analogy  of  the  ship.  Though 
the  Ship  of  Commerce  be  staunchly  built,  well  fur- 
nished with  gear  and  instruments,  amply  supplied 
with  good  charts  and  with  minute  sailing  directions, 
bad  seamanship  can  wreck  her;  though  the  Ship  of 
State  be  constructed  after  the  most  approved  model, 
though  it  be  equipped  with  the  most  perfect  me- 
chanical devices,  though  its  sailing  directions  in- 
clude every  moral  precept,  every  ethical  principle, 
every  practical  maxim  to  be  found  in  the  lexicon  of 
good  intentions,  it  can  be  wrecked  by  the  ignorance, 
by  the  folly,  or  by  the  corruption  of  its  officers  or 
its  crew. 


i 


CHAPTER  II 

FUR  generations  have  matured  on  the  soil  of 
the  United  States  since  the  Constitution  es- 
tablished the  national  Government  in  1787.  What 
is  the  state  of  the  Government,  what  is  the  state 
of  the  nation  to-day? 

If  we  examine  the  field  of  physical  achievement 
we  observe  on  every  side  convincing  evidences  of  an 
extraordinary  advance.  After  the  work  of  the 
pioneers  had  exposed  to  the  courage  and  virility 
native  in  the  breed  homed  on  the  Eastern  seaboard 
the  unlimited  possibilities  lying  beyond  the  Missis- 
sippi, after  the  Civil  War  had  toughened  the  na- 
tion's manhood  in  the  school  of  military  experience 
and  had  exalted  its  womanhood  in  the  school  of 
suffering,  after  the  close  of  the  conflict  had  released 
the  disciplined  energy  of  a  reunited  people,  the 
country  entered  upon  a  new  era.  As  the  years 
passed,  material  development  proceeded  upon  a 
scale  of  unprecedented  magnitude  and  with  a  vigor 
and  speed  which  nothing  availed  to  check.  An  oc- 
casional financial  panic,  an  occasional  period  of  in- 
dustrial  depression,  served  only  to  mark  the  begin- 

53 


54    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 


ning  of  a  new  advance ;  and  the  country  was  swept 
along,  decade  by  decade,  on  an  irresistible  tide  of 
prosperity. 

The  broad  features  of  the  phenomenal  growth  of 
the  United  States  during  the  past  fifty  years,  in 
every  physical  category,  are  too  familiar  to  justify 
any  detailed  reference  to  them.  By  whatever  stand- 
ard we  elect  to  measure  material  progress,  the 
United  States  can  furnish  figures  of  which  its  citizens 
may  well  be  proud. 

When,  however,  we  turn  from  the  striking  rec- 
ord of  material  achievement  and  concentrate  our 
attention  upon  the  social  and  political  life  of  the  na- 
tion, we  are  confronted  with  a  state  of  affairs  which 
is  well-nigh  incredible. 

In  a  country  which  has  never  suffered  from  war- 
like invasion,  which  has  never  had  to  pay  the  price 
of  imperial  responsibilities,  which  has  never  borne 
the  yoke  of  militarism,  which  has  never  faced  the 
problems  of  overpopulation,  which  has  never  lacked 
the  wealth  necessary  to  give  fulfillment  to  its  hopes 
of  social  betterment;  in  a  country  endowed,  above 
all  other  countries,  with  everything  that  Nature  can 
offer  to  the  talent  and  industry  of  man,  and  in  which 
man  is  endowed,  above  all  other  men,  with  every- 
thing that  opportunity  can  offer  to  talent  and  in- 
dustry— in  such  a  country  we  might  hope  to  find, 
after  nearly  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  self-de- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    55 

termination,  political  and  social  conditions  immeas- 
urably superior  to  those  which  prevail  in  countries 
which  have  enjoyed  none  of  the  social  immunities 
and  few  of  the  natural  advantages  with  which  the 
American  people  have  been  blessed. 

What  are  the  actual  facts  as  they  face  us  to-day? 
Have  the  people  of  the  United  States  provided 
themselves  with  a  judicial  system  or  with  a  parlia- 
mentary system  greatly  superior  to  those  of  Eng- 
land? Or  with  local  governments  greatly  superior 
to  those  of  Australia?  Or  with  systems  of  food 
production  and  distribution  greatly  superior  to  those 
of  Denmark?  Or  with  an  educational  system 
greatly  superior  to  that  of  Scotland?  Or  with  an 
industrial  technique  greatly  superior  to  that  of 
France?  Or  with  an  administrative  technique 
greatly  superior  to  that  of  Canada?  Or  with  a 
larger  measure  of  social  and  political  freedom  than 
may  be  found  in  any  of  these  countries? 

If  these  questions  are  answered  in  the  negative, 
they  must  be  supplemented  by  the  further  question: 
What,  then,  have  the  American  people  made  of  the 
extraordinary  opportunities  which  have  been  at  their 
disposal?  If  they  are  answered  in  the  affirmative, 
we  must  then, ask:  How  is  it  that  these  greatly  su- 
perior achievements  in  politics,  in  administration,  in 
jurisprudence,  in  education,  in  industry,  in  liberty, 
so  far  from  having  saved  the  United  States  from 


56    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

the  social  and  political  unrest  which  threatens  the 
countries  of  inferior  achievement,  are  associated 
with  a  thorough  infection  of  discontent  throughout 
the  whole  body  of  the  nation?  How  is  it  that  here, 
in  this  fortunate  land,  there  should  have  developed 
so  much  Rjidifi&lism,  so  much  Socialism,  so  much 
Syndicalism;  that  here  the  toll  of  crime,  of  misde- 
meanor, of  business  immorality,  of  political  corrup- 
tion, of  civic  ineptitude  should  not  be  noticeably 
lighter  than  it  is  in  those  countries  to  which  we  are 
so  superior  in  so  many  fundamental  elements? 

As  Liberty  is  popularly  supposed  to  be  the  one 
thing  in  which  the  United  States  is  incontestably  pre- 
eminent,  and  as  preeminence  in  this  particular  is 
constantly  urged  In  extenuation  of  admitted  defects 
in  other  particulars,  I  will  put  American  Liberty 
to  the  test  of  some  comparisons. 

What  is  the  position  in  regard  to  social  liberty? 

Is  the  Englishman,  Is  the  Australian,  is  the  Dane, 
is  the  Scot,  is  the  Frenchman,  is  the  Canadian  less 
free  than  the  American  to  worship  as  he  chooses, 
to  marry  as  he  chooses,  to  work  as  he  chooses,  to 
idle  as  he  chooses,  to  save  as  he  chooses,  to  spend 
as  he  chooses,  to  live  where  he  chooses,  to  travel 
where  he  chooses,  to  eat,  drink,  and  wear  what  he 

chooses? 

If  social  liberty  depends  upon  the  protection  of 
life  and  of  property,  if  it  depends  upon  the  speedy 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    57 

and  impartial  administration  of  the  law,  if  it  de- 
pends upon  freedom  of  the  press,  upon  freedom  of 
speech,  upon  freedom  of  assembly,  upon  freedom 
of  contract,  upon  academic  freedom,  In  what  sense 
is  any  one  of  these  peoples  less  free  than  the  Amer- 
ican people? 

To  many  people,  perhaps  to  most  people,  "social 
liberty'  means  **socIal  equality**;  but  if  these  ideas 
are  critically  examined  it  is  seen  that  they  are  not 
only  different  but  also  irreconcilable,  and  that  the 
former  refers  to  something  real  and  realizable,  the 
latter  to  something  unreal  and  unrealizable.  So  far 
as  social  **LIberty**  is  in  any  way  affected  by  Gov- 
ernment, it  exists  wherever  there  is  equal  status  be- 
fore the  law,  and  every  man  is  assured  the  free  ex- 
ercise of  his  talents  and  of  his  industry,  and  the  free 
enjoyment  of  their  rewards.  From  such  freedom, 
however,  there  arises  not  social  equality  but  social 
inequality,  since  talent  and  industry  are  unequally 

distributed. 

In  regard  to  social  **equallty'*  it  is  sufficient  to  re- 
mark  that  it  cannot  be  produced  by  equalizing  in- 
comes, since  desires  vary;  or  by  equalizing  educa- 
tional opportunity,  since  abilities  vary;  or  by  equal- 
izing social  opportunity,  since  social  preferences 
vary;  or  by  equalizing  possessions,  since  tastes  vary. 
Even  if  there  existed  some  unhappy  land  in  which 
Ignorance  and  knowledge,  intelligence  and  stupidity, 


58    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

sloth  and  ignorance,  culture  and  vulgarity  were 
equally  esteemed,  you  could  not  establish  social 
equality  there  until  you  had  accomplished  the  im- 
possible task  of  standardizing  desire,  ability,  taste, 
and  social  preference. 

When  the  appeal  for  social  "equality*'  goes 
beyond  a  demand  for  equality  of  opportunity  it 
becomes  neither  more  nor  less  than  an  appeal  for 
social  injustice ;  and  in  the  mouths  of  the  most  vigor- 
ous of  the  appellants  that  is  precisely  that  the 
demand  means.  It  is  a  demand  that  equality  of 
reward  shall  go  hand  in  hand  with  inequality  of  serv- 
ice; and  it  is  justified  by  the  extremists  on  the  ground 
that  the  superior  endowment  which  enables  a  man 
to  give  superior  service  is  itself  a  basic  injustice. 
Inflicted  by  Nature,  which  it  is  the  duty  of  society  to 
remedy  by  equalizing  recompense. 

It  cannot  be  supposed  that  this  view  is  entertained 
by  any  large  number  of  people  as  a  thought-out 
theory;  but  it  is  a  matter  of  common  observation 
that  superiority  of  any  kind — whether  of  income, 
of  family,  of  skill  (except  in  athletics),  of  power, 
of  possessions,  even  of  dress — excites  re:entment 
,  among  the  inferior,  and  that  there  is  an  increasing 
tendenc)'  to  exploit  this  resentment  not  only  to  the 
point  of  carrying  out  a  general  leveling  process, 
but  toward  the  ultimate  goal  of  transferring  from 
brains  to  brawn  the  dominating  influence  in  social 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    59 

progress.  If  there  is  any  sense  In  which  there  is 
more  social  liberty  in  the  United  States  than  there 
is  elsewhere,  it  Is  in  the  sense  that  this  movement  is 
here  less  restrained  than  it  is  elsewhere,  either  by 
the  influence  of  tradition  and  custom  or  by  that  of 
philosophic  conservatism. 

It  is  true  that  social  liberty  is  a  somewhat  in- 
tangible conception,  that  it  rests  largely  upon  sub- 
jective considerations,  and  is,  therefore,  impossible 
to  define  in  exact  terms.  Political  liberty  is,  in  these 
respects,  a  more  satisfactory  subject  of  discussion. 
Do  the  American  people  enjoy  more  political  liberty 
than  other  self-governing  peoples? 

The  only  practical  test  of  the  amount  of  political 
liberty  yielded  by  any  form  of  government  is  to  de- 
termine the  extent  and  character  of  the  control  ex- 
ercised over  legislation  and  over  high  administra- 
tive officials  by  the  voting  population.     Subjected 
to  this  test  the  political  system  of  the  United  States 
appears  to  yield  less  liberty  than  any  other  system 
in  operation  under  a  *^popular''  constitution.     For 
the  purpose  of  illustration  I  will  compare  some  fea- 
tures of  the  American  and  of  the  British  system. 
In  England,  then,  the  voice  of  Parliament  is  au- 
thoritative.    Any  legislative  measure,  whatever  may 
be  its  provisions,  duly  passed  by  the  Commons  and 
the  Lords  and  signed  by  the  king  becomes  the  law 
of  the  land,  and  remains  the  law  of  the  land  unless 


6o    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

and  until  it  Is  amended  or  repealed  by  the  same  agen- 
cies. In  practice  it  is  the  will  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons— the  elected  branch  of  the  legislature — which 
is  supreme.  This  supremacy  is  challenged  only  by 
the  power  of  the  sovereign  to  withhold  his  assent 
from  legislation;  and  the  latest  exercise  of  this 
power  was  made  more  than  two  hundred  years  ago. 
Until  within  the  past  decade  the  House  of  Lords  had 
the  power  to  kill  measures  sent  up  from  the  Com- 
mons. This  power  has  been  taken  away;  but  even 
while  it  remained,  a  resolute  ministry,  backed  by  the 
House  of  Commons  and  by  popular  sentiment,  could 
force  a  measure  through  the  Lords  by  threatening 
the  creation  of  new  peers — a  threat  which  has  been 
effective  on  more  than  one  occasion. 

What  is  the  situation  in  the  United  States  in  re- 
gard to  this  phase  of  legislation?  Neither  Con- 
gress nor  a  State  Legislature  possesses  the  power 
to  translate  into  effective  law  the  will  of  the  peo- 
ple's representatives.  Whatever  law  an  American 
legislature  passes  must,  if  it  is  to  stand  the  test  of 
an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  conform  with  the  principles  laid  down  in  the 
Federal  Constitution.  Nor  is  this  the  only  limita- 
tion upon  the  legislative  expression  of  the  citizens' 
wishes.  Federal  legislation  is  subject  to  the  Presi- 
dential veto;  State  legislation  is  subject  to  the  veto 
of  the  Governor;  and  this  power  of  veto  is  exercised 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    6i 

every  year  over  hundreds  of  measures  which  have 
passed  both  houses  of  a  legislature. 

The  power  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  declare  leg- 
islation to  be  unconstitutional  has  the  practical  con- 
sequence of  making  that  Court  a  legislative  as  well 
as  a  judicial  body.  It  cannot,  of  course,  initiate  leg- 
islation, but  it  can  and  does  exert  a  powerful  influ- 
ence over  the  initiative  function  of  legislatures,  and 
where  this  influence  does  not  suffice  to  keep  legisla- 
tures within  the  bounds  of  the  Court's  interpretation 
of  the  Constitution  it  can  and  does  destroy  the  of- 
fending measure.  The  United  States  Supreme 
Court,  unlike  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy 
Council  or  the  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature  in  Eng- 
land, has  before  it  not  only  the  litigants  but  also  the 

law  itself. 

So  far,  then,  as  political  freedom  resides  in  the 
untrammeled  right  to  make  law  of  the  people's 
wishes,  the  American  is  less  free  than  the  English- 
<  man.  Indeed  the  restraining  hand  which  the  Con- 
^stitution  holds  over  American  legislation  is  re- 
garded by  many  eminent  authorities  as  one  of  the 
most  beneficent  features  of  the  American  plan  of 
Government.  The  point  is  precisely  defined  by 
President  Nicholas  Murray  Butler  in  his  most  in- 
teresting   and    suggestive    volume,    "Is    America 

Worth  Saving?" 

"Without  constitutional  limitations,"  he  says,  "the 


\ 


Ij 


I  I 


62    Democrx\cy  and  the  Human  Equation 

Congress  of  the  United  States  would  be  as  sover- 
eign as  is  the  House  of  Commons,  and  all  those  pre- 
cious immunities  that  are  set  out  in  the  Constitution 
and  its  amendments,  and  as  to  which  the  individual 
citizen  may  appeal  to  the  judiciary  for  protection, 
would  be  placed  upon  the  same  plane  as  a  statute 
authorizing  the  appointment  of  an  interstate  com- 
merce commission  or  one  denouncing  a  monopoly  or 
other  act  in  restraint  of  trade.  It  must  not  be  for- 
gotten that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  unconstitu- 
tional law  in  Great  Britain.  The  fact  that  the  Par- 
liament enacts  a  law  makes  it  constitutional,  no  mat- 
ter what  its  effect  upon  life,  liberty,  or  property  may 
be;  for  Parliament  is  sovereign.  To  propose  to  im- 
port this  condition  into  the  United  States  is  not 
progress  but  reaction.'' 

Those  who  are  in  favor  of  making  American 
legislation  more  closely  representative  of  the  polit- 
ical opinion  of  the  country  deplore  the  existence  of 
those  Constitutional  restrictions  which  President 
Butler  praises.  They  point  out  that  these  limita- 
tions actually  deprive  the  people  of  that  full  sover- 
eignty  which  is  implied  in  Umcoln's  immortal  phrase 
"that  Government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and 
for  the  people  shall  not  perish  from  the  earth.'' 
They  assert  that  the  enforcement  of  a  code  of  politi- 
cal morals  drawn  up  in  the  eighteenth  century  pre- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    63 

vents  the  American  people  from  securing  that  prog- 
ress in  self-government  which  is  to  be  observed 
among  other  peoples.  *The  human  will  in  its  col- 
lective aspect,"  says  Mr.  Herbert  Croly,  "was  made 
subservient  to  the  mechanism  of  a  legal  system."     -^ 

The  evil  consequences  which  flow  from  these  limi- 
tations on  political  freewill  are  reflected,  according 
to  this  view,  not  only  in  the  quality  of  legislation 
but  also  in  the  quality  of  legislators.  ''If  a  legisla- 
tive body,"  asks  Professor  Franklin  H.  Giddings,  in 
a  recent  article,  "whether  Federal  Congress  or  State 
Legislature,  can  be  overridden  by  higher  authority, 
can  it  in  the  nature  of  things  psychological  feel  a 
profound  sense  of  responsibility;  and  if  it  does  not 
feel  responsibility  can  it  in  the  long  run  attract  men 
of  the  largest  caliber  and  the  highest  quality?" 

However  widely  students  may  differ  as  to  the  ad- 
visability of  preserving  those  restrictions  which  the 
Constitution  imposes  upon  political  liberty  in  the 
United  States,  there  are  in  active  operation  other 
restraints  which  are  regarded  as  odious  by  every 
decent  citizen,  but  which,  nevertheless,  are  constantly 
and  effectively  employed  to  destroy  the  power  of  the 

voters. 

It  is  surely  a  matter  of  great  significance  that  in 
the  national  electoral  campaign  of  19 12  the  Demo- 
cratic platform  and  the  Progressive  platform  should 


64    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

each  have  made  the  specific  charge   that  Representa- 
tive  Government  had  been  destroyed  in  the  United 

States. 

*^We  call  attention/*  said  the   Democratic  plat- 
form, *'to  the  fact  that  the  Democratic  party's  de- 
mand  for  a  return  to  the  rule  of  the  people,  ex- 
pressed in  the  national  platform  four  years  ago,  has 
now  become  the  accepted  doctrine  of  a  large  major- 
ity of  the  electors.     We  again  remind  the  country 
that  only  by  the  larger  exercise  of  the  reserved  power 
of  the  people  can  they  protect  themselves  from  the 
misuse  of  delegated  power  and  the  usurpation  of 
Governmental  instrumentalities  by  special  interests. 
The  Democratic  party  offers  itself  to  the  coun- 
try as  an  agency  through  which  the  complete  over- 
throw and  extirpation  of  corruption,  fraud  and  ma- 
chine rule  in  American  politics  can  be  effected.''  ^ 

The  Progressive  party  platform  stated:  *Toht- 
ical  parties  exist  to  secure  responsible  Government 
and  to  execute  the  will  of  the  people.  From  these 
great  tasks  both  of  the  old  parties  have  turned  aside. 
Instead  of  instruments  to  promote  the  general  wel- 
fare,  they  have  become  the  tools  of  corrupt  inter- 
ests,'which  use  them  impartially  to  serve  their  selfish 
purposes.  Behind  the  ostensible  Government  sits  en- 
throned  an  invisible  Government,  owing  no  allegiance 
and  acknowledging  no  responsibility  to  the  people. 
To  destroy  this  invisible  Government,  to  dissolve 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    65 

the  unholy  alliance  between  corrupt  business  and 
corrupt  politics,  is  the  first  task  of  the  statesmanship 

of  the  day." 

We  have  here  a  state  of  affairs  which  is  almost 
unprecedented  in  the  history  of  modern  Democracy. 
One  of  the  older  parties  charges  the  other  with  hav- 
ing destroyed  the  rule  of  the  people,  and  with  having 
debauched  the  Government;  the  new  party,  which 
was  specifically  a  party  of  protest,  charges  both  the 
older  parties  with  having  sold  their  political  honor 
to  corrupt  interests.  This  is  something  quite  differ- 
ent from  the  usual  party  rivalries  founded  upon  di- 
vergence of  view  as  to  matters  of  national  policy. 
It  is  no  longer  a  question  of  protection  or  a  tariff 
for  revenue  only,  of  preponderating  State  control  or 
preponderating  Federal  control,  of  extravagance  or 
economy  in  the  public  administration;  it  is  a  ques- 
tion of  whether  or  not  the  whole  purpose  of  Amer- 
/  lean  political  Institutions  has  not  been  defeated  by 
Cjthe  corruption  of  the  political  agencies. 

The  Socialist  party,  which  polled  nearly  a  mil- 
lion votes,  offered  the  country  a  platform  which  in 
the  main  embodied  the  familiar  Socialist  demands; 
but  it  included  demands  addressed  to  securing  a 
larger  measure  of  political  freedom  in  the  country 
— for  greater  freedom  of  the  press,  of  speech,  and 
of  assemblage;  for  the  abolition  of  the  power  of  the 
Supreme  Court  to  pass  upon  the  Constitutionality  of 


!    ; 


66    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

legislation;  for  the  abolition  of  the  present  restric- 
tions upon  the  amendment  of  the  Constitution,  so 
that  that  instrument  might  be  amended  by  a  ma- 
jority  of  the  voters  in  a  majority  of  the  states;  for 
the  adoption  of  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum,  and 
the  Recall;  and  for  the  introduction  of  proportional 
representation  both  in  national  and  local  elections. 
Out  of  fifteen  million  votes  cast  in  the  national 
election  of  19 12,  more  than  eleven  million,  or  nearly 
seventy-four  per  cent,  were  cast  for  the  Democratic, 
the  Progressive,  and  the  Socialist  nominees  for  the 
Presidency;   and  the   Republican   candidate   polled 
fewer   votes   than  any    Republican   candidate   had 
polled  since   1868.     The  Republican  vote  was,  of 
course,  split  between  Mr.  Roosevelt  and  Mr.  Taft; 
but  the  split  came  on  the  very  issue  of  the  urgent 
need  for  a  new  and  more  vital  interpretation  of 
Republicanism;   and  the   insurgent   wing  beat   the 
conservative  wing  by  more  than  six  hundred  thou- 
sand votes. 

There  is  no  dispute  as  to  the  existence  of  the  Con- 
stitutional restraints  upon  political  free-will  in  the 
United  States;  and  for  the  existence  of  the  extra- 
constitutional  restraints  there  is  the  evidence  of  the 
party  platforms  in  19 12,  and  of  the  vote  in  the  elec- 
tion of  that  year. 

If  anything  more  were  needed  to  sustain  the  view 
that  Government  of  the  people  had  survived  and 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    67 

flourished,  and  that  Government  by  the  people  and 
for  the  people  had  fallen  by  the  political  wayside, 
it  could  be  found  in  the  general  tone  of  political 
discussion  in  the  various  organs  of  public  opinion 
during  the  past  twenty  years.     There  has  been  con- 
stantly presented  in  the  writings  of  serious  men — 
whether  in  the  press,  in  the  magazines,  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  scientific  societies,  or  in  books — a  clear 
conviction  that  Government  in  the  United  States  has 
passed  from  the  control  of  the  people  to  that  of  the 
party  machines,  that  these  machines  are  serving  the 
ambitions  of  party  politicians  Instead  of  the  public 
interest,  and  that  they  have  gradually  come  to  draw 
their  power  not  from  the  support  of  public  opinion 
but  from  that  of  financial  and  industrial  autocracy. 
In  recent  years  a  new  form  of  special  control  has 
arisen,    that    of    strongly    organized    and    heavily 
financed  minorities;  and  this  control  is  even  more 
dangerous  to  political  liberty  than  that  of  the  party 
machines,   for  it  is  not  only  free  from  the  check 
which  internal  rivalries  exert  upon  machine  politics, 
but   also   enjoys  the   insidious  advantage   of  being 
able  to  masquerade  as  the  agent  of  a  "popular"  de- 
mand. 

The  considerations  advanced  up  to  this  point  have 
been  those  suggested  chiefly  by  an  examination  of 
political  determinism  in  the  United  States  up  to  the 
eve  of  the  Great  War;  that  is  to  say  under  condi- 


( 


68    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

tions  normal  in  the  sense  that  for  nearly  fifty  years 
the  Democratic  institutions  of  the  country  had  been 
subjected  to  no  greater  strain  than  is  incident  to  the 
ordinary  conduct  of  civil  government  of  the  mod- 
ern type.  ^ 

What  has  happened  to  the  American  political  sys- 
tem since  the  United  States  entered  the  War  in  191 7 
has  disclosed  with  unmistakable  clearness  that  what- 
ever measure  of  political  freedom  actually  belonged 
to  the  American  people  was  endowed  with  no  such 
security  of  tenure  as  the  Constitution  was  supposed 

to  guarantee. 

The  War  compelled  the  United  States,  as  it  had 
compelled  Great  Britain  and  France,  to  abolish  De- 
mocracy for  the  duration  of  the  War,  in  order  that 
when  the  War  was  won  the  world  might  be  made 
safe  for  the  kind  of  Democracy  which  had  to  re- 
tire  into  the  remote  background  while  the  world 
was  being  made  safe  for  it.     This  tacit  admission 
\  of  the  weakness  of  Democracy  on  the  admimstrative 
\  side  was  forced  upon  the  Democratic  world  by  the 
'  unanimous  opinion  that  the  problems  of  the  War 
could  not  be  solved  by  the  quibbling  artifices  of  poll- 
tics,   that,    confronted  with   the   grim   elements   of 
stark  reality.  Democracy  must  forswear  its  allegiance 
to  oratory,  to  procrastination,  to  large  promise,  and 
to  small  performance,  and,  for  a  while  at  least,  ac- 
cept those  cold,  hard  facts  of  human  experience,  for- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    69 

merly  the  butt  of  its  demagogic  wit,  the  despised 
counselors  of  its  ease,  the  unheeded  beggars  at  the 
wheels  of  its  haste. 

Committed  to  this  course  by  the  obvious  necessi- 
ties of  the  occasion,  the  American  people  outdid 
their  Democratic  brethren  the  world  over,  and  even 
their  autocratic  rivals  in  Central  Europe,  in  the  mat- 
ter of  conferring  power  upon  their  chief  executive. 

Taking  it  all  in  all,  no  man  has  ever  wielded 
greater  authority,  less  conditioned,  than  that  which 
the  War  legislation  of  Congress  placed  in  the  hands 
of  President  Wilson.  No  one  who  appreciates  the 
full  gravity  of  the  world  situation  in  I9i7»  who  un- 
derstands the  peculiar  difficulty  of  carrying  into  war 
a  population  as  racially  varied  as  that  of  the  United 
States,  who  is  aware  of  the  extent  to  which  that  pop- 
ulation had  been  drugged  into  a  false  sense  of  safety 
by  the  political  rhapsodists  and  by  the  professional 
pacifists,  can  doubt  that  the  brilliant  and  effective 
part  played  by  the  country  in  the  great  conflict  was 
due  primarily  to  the  unlimited  war  powers  vested  in 
the  President,  and  to  his  unflinching  employment  of 

them. 

He  had  the  courage  to  discard  with  the  utmost 
promptness  principles  hitherto  regarded  as  the  cor- 
nerstone, the  pillar,  and  the  arch  of  American  De- 
mocracy, and  to  consign  to  the  limbo  of  exploded 
fallacies,  decentralization  as  the  soul  of  Government, 


70    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

competition  as  the  soul  of  efficiency,  and  individual- 
ism  as  the  soul  of  poHtics.  As  the  days  passed  and 
the  advantages  of  a  strong  centralized  authority 
became  increasingly  apparent,  public  sentiment 
hailed  with  satisfaction  each  fresh  proof  that  the 
War  was  to  be  conducted  with  a  close  regard  for 
the  realities,  and  that  peace  methods  based  upon 
idealistic  theory  were  being  rapidly  abandoned  for 
war  methods  based  upon  practical  expediency.^ 

But  with  the  conclusion  of  the  armistice  in  No- 
vember,  19 1 8,  the  existence  and  the  continued  ex- 
ercise of  autocratic  power  in  the  chief  executive  of- 
fice of  the  nation  began  to  take  on  a  new  aspect. 
Every  one  who  had  given  any  serious  thought  to  the 
conduct  of  the  War  knew  that  of  all  the  persons  di- 
rectly charged  with  the  responsibilities  incident  to 
training  the  army,  to  feeding  it,  to  transporting  it 
overseas,  to  arming  it,  to  supplying  it  with  ammuni- 
tion,  to  leading  it  in  battle,  to  caring  for  its  wounded, 
not  one  had  been  chosen  through  the  agency  of  the 
ballot  box,  that  not  one  of  them  had  derived  his 
authority  from  a  popular  vote.     Every  one  knew 
that  if  popular  control  had  entered  into  any  phase 
of  the  military  activity  the  American  people  would 
never  have  witnessed  the  extraordinary  spectacle  af- 
forded by  the  final  marshaling  of  the  intellectual, 
moral,  and  material  resources  of  the  country  in  the 
service  of  its  war  aims. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    71 

No  sooner  had  the  exigencies  of  war  lifted  their 
unifying  pressure  from  the  American  spirit  than  the 
general  demand  arose  that  the  war  powers  of  the 
Government  should  be  given  up,  that  the  ^'freedom" 
of  American  life  should  be  restored.  This  was,  of 
course,  to  be  expected;  and  a  similar  demand  had 
arisen  in  all  countries.  What  is  to  be  observed  as 
a  phenomenon  closely  related  to  the  question  of  po- 
litical free-will  in  the  United  States  is  that  it  has 
been  found  more  difficult  here  than  elsewhere  to 
secure  a  return  to  the  normal,  peace-time  function- 
ing of  Government. 

Those  who  entertain  a  confident  assurance  that 
the  United  States  Constitution  can  safeguard  effec- 
tively the  liberties  of  the  American  people,  that  facts 
inconsistent  with  this  belief  do  not  destroy  the 
premise,  but  merely  prove  that  all  human  institu- 
tions,  even  the  Constitution,  lack  something  of  per- 
fection,  would  do  well  to  ponder  the  words  of  the 
Hon.  Charles  E.  Hughes,  formerly  a  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  Speaking  on 
June  21,  1920,  at  the  centenary  celebration  of  the 
Harvard  Law  School  Association,  he  said:  "We 
went  to  war  for  liberty  and  democracy,  with  the 
result  that  we  fed  the  autocratic  appetite.  And, 
through  a  fi'ction,  permissible  only  because  the 
courts  cannot  know  what  every  one  else  knows,  we 
have  seen  the  war  powers,  which  are  essential  to 


72    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

the  preservation  of  the  nation  in  time  of  war,  exer- 
cised broadly  after  the  military  exigency  had  passed 
and  in  conditions  for  which  they  were  never  in- 
tended, and  we  may  well  wonder^  in  view  of  the 
precedents  now  established^  whether  Constitutional 
Government  as  heretofore  maintained  in  this  repub- 
lic could  survive  another  great  war  even  victoriously 
waged/' 

Coming  from  such  a  source — from  a  man  of  high 
distinction  in  the  public  life  of  the  nation,  from  a 
man  whose  sobriety  of  thought  and  whose  legal 
scholarship  are  universally  respected,  from  a  man 
who  has  sat  in  that  very  court  which  Is  the  deposi- 
tory of  the  Constitutional  rights  of  the  American 
people — the  words  I  have  placed  in  italics  carry  a 
significance  which  cannot  be  mistaken. 

From  what  has  gone  before  it  is  difficult  to  es- 
cape the  conclusion  that,  if  the  test  is  the  power  to 
control  legislation  and  to  give  expression  to  the  pop- 
ular will  In  matters  of  broad  national  policy,  the 
American  people  do  not  enjoy  a  larger  measure  of 
political  freedom  than  is  enjoyed  by  other  peoples. 
Do  they  enjoy  more  liberty  If  the  test  is  the  power 
to  control  the  conduct  of  the  higher  administrative 
officials? 

So  far  as  the  President  is  concerned,  the  clear 
implication  to  be  drawn  from  the  passage  I  have 
quoted  from  Mr.  Hughes's  speech  is  that  no  Prime 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    73 

Minister — much  less  any  President  or  Monarch — 
under  a  ^'responsible^'  government,  could  have  re- 
sisted as  President  Wilson  has  resisted  the  pressure 
put  upon  him  by  the  National  Legislature  and  by 
public  opinion.  How  does  the  matter  stand  in  re- 
gard to  those  officials  who  rank  immediately  below 
the  President? 

In  the  United  States,  as  in  England,  the  highest 
administrative  officials  of  the  National  Government 
are  members  of  the  Cabinet ;  but  no  two  bodies  could 
be  less  alike,  measured  by  their  responsibility  to  the 
people,  than  those  which  assemble,  respectively,  at 
the  White  House  and  at  No.  lo  Downing  Street. 
The  members  of  the  English  Cabinet  are  selected 
by  the  leaders  of  the  political  party  which,  for  the 
time  being,  holds  office.  Each  of  them  must  sit 
either  In  the  Upper  or  in  the  Lower  House  of  Par- 
liament. Thus  all  the  great  officers  of  State  are 
compelled  to  face  their  political  opponents  day  by 
day  when  Parliament  is  in  session,  must  be  con- 
stantly prepared  to  explain  and  defend  the  policy 
of  the  Gov^ernment,  and  must  answer  questions  in 
regard  to  matters  with  which  their  departments  are 
concerned.  For  example,  If  the  Postmaster  Gen- 
eral should  allow  his  department  to  deteriorate  to 
a  point  where  it  no  longer  rendered  efficient  service 
to  the  public,  any  member  of  the  House  In  which 
the  Postmaster  General  has  his  seat  can,  in  the  form 


74    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

of  a  question,  confront  that  official  with  specific 
instances  of  Incompetence,  can  demand  an  explana- 
tion, and  can  threaten  to  make  the  matter  a 
Parliamentary  issue  unless  conditions  are  speedily 

improved. 

What  applies  to  the  Post  Office,  applies  equally 
to  every  department  of  the  public  service,  so  that  the 
representatives  of  the  English  people  are  at  all  times 
in  a  position  where  they  can  call  to  account  the  head 
of  any  department  of  the  executive  government;  and 
this  check  is  exercised  in  such  a  way  that  the  com- 
plaint and  the  official  explanation  are  spread  upon 

I  the  record  of  Parliament,  and  are,  within  a  few 

I  hours,  offered  to  the  eye  of  every  Englishman  who 

\  reads  a  newspaper. 

^  Nor  is  it  possible  for  an  official  thus  held  to  his 
responsibility  to  treat  the  matter  lightly,  to  say  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  complaint  but  political  venom, 
or  to  decline  the  challenge  of  the  enquiry,  or  to  meet 
the  criticism  by  a  blunt  denial  of  the  facts  or  by  a 
lip-service  to  efficiency.  If  he  should  follow  any 
of  these  courses  he  imperils  not  only  his  own  tenure 
of  a  lucrative  post,  not  only  the  tenure  of  similar 
posts  by  his  political  associates,  but  also  the  tenure 
of  office  by  his  party.  And  this  peril  is  not  one 
which  lies  in  the  chances  of  a  distant  election,  it  is 
one  with  which  he  and  his  party  can  be  confronted 
at  any  moment.     Under  the  English  system,  which 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    75 

allows  a  national  ekction  to  be  held  at  any  time  when 
the  party  in  power  fails  to  secure  a  majority  on  any 
important  motion  in  the  House  of  Commons,  a  very 
narrow  limit  is  set  to  the  defiance  which  the  heads 
of  the  Government  departments  can  offer  to  well- 
founded  criticism  of  the  conduct  of  public  business. 

Every  one  who  is  familiar  with  the  conduct  of 
great  enterprises,  whatever  may  be  their  special 
character,  knows  that  the  only  form  of  control  which 
is  in  any  real  sense  effective  is  that  which  rests  upon 
the  ability  to  fix  responsibility  squarely  upon  a  par- 
ticular individual,  and  upon  the  power  to  make  that 
individual  himself  pay  the  price  of  his  shortcomings. 

This  form  of  control  the  Englishman  holds  over 
every  man  who  fills  a  political  office  in  the  national 
Government.  Does  the  American  hold  any  such 
control  over  the  high  officials  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment? 

As  in  England,  so  in  the  United  States,  the  Cab- 
inet is  composed  of  the  heads  of  the  great  admin- 
istrative departments,  and  are  political  appointees 
in  the  sense  that  they  are  chosen  by  the  President 
from  adherents  of  his  party.  But  here  the  simi- 
larity between  the  two  bodies  ceases.  The  Presi- 
dent's Cabinet  is  not  responsible  to  the  country  for 
a  program  of  legislation;  it  is  not  responsible  to 
Congress  for  the  efficient  discharge  of  departmental 
business.     Short  of  the  commission  of  gross  acts  of 


I 


76    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

malfeasance,  for  which  removal  from  office  might 
be  attempted  by  the  difficult  and  uncertain  process 
of  impeachment,  a  member  of  the  President's  Cab- 
inet has  nothing  to  fear  from  public  indignation  or 
from  any  act  which  lies  within  the  power  of  the  peo- 
ple's representatives  in  Congress;  and  he  can  re- 
tain his  place  in  the  Cabinet  and  his  control  of  his 
department  for  four  years  (or  for  eight,  as  the  case 
may  be)  upon  the  single  condition  that  he  remains 
persona  grata  at  the  White  House.  A  striking  ex- 
ample of  the  inability  of  the  American  people  to 
find,  through  the  exercise  of  their  political  power, 
a  quick  and  effective  remedy  for  notorious  official 
incompetence,  is  furnished  by  the  operation  of  the 
United  States  mail  service  during  the  past  seven 
years,  a  service  which  has  steadily  sunk  from  depth 
to  depth  of  inefficiency,  until  it  has  become  the  ob- 
ject of  universal  ridicule,  and  this  in  face  of  innu- 
merable protests  from  every  section  of  the  country 
and  from  every  class  of  the  population. 

An  example  even  more  striking  is  that  of  the 
charges  recently  made  against  the  Department  of 
Justice  by  the  National  Popular  Government 
League.  These  charges  are  embodied  in  a  Report 
on  the  Illegal  Practices  of  the  Department  of  Jus- 
tice, signed  by  the  Dean  of  the  Harvard  Law  School, 
and  by  eleven  other  legal  experts.  It  is  unneces- 
sary to  enter  into  the  details  of  the  incident,  but  it 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    77 


is  pertinent  to  note  that  a  Federal  Judge,  in  whose 
Court  the  actions  of  the  Department  of  Justice  were 
introduced  in  evidence,  employed  the  following  lan- 
guage: 

*'I  refrain  from  any  extended  comment  on  the 
lawlessness  of  these  proceedings  by  our  supposedly 
law-enforcing  officials.  The  documents  and  acts 
speak  for  themselves.  It  may,  however,  fitly  be  ob- 
served that  a  mob  is  a  mob,  whether  made  up  of 
government  officials  acting  under  instructions  from 
the  Department  of  Justice,  or  of  criminals,  loafers 
and  the  vicious  classes.*' 

That  the  affair  did  not  lack  wide  publicity  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  The  Nation  published  a 
three-page  article  about  it  on  June  12,  1920.  The 
writer,  Captain  Swinburne  Hale,  a  graduate  of  Har- 
vard College  and  of  the  Harvard  Law  School,\ 
charges  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  1 
with  having  employed  brutality,  torture,  forgery, 
theft,  and  the  activities  of  provocative  agents,  in 
the  cases  he  discusses;  and  advocates  his  impeach- 
ment for  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors. 

It  is  highly  significant  of  the  political  helplessness 
of  the  American  people  that  their  highest  legal  of- 
ficial can  be  confronted  by  a  reputable  national  or- 
ganization, by  the  Judge  of  a  Federal  Court,  and 
by  a  weekly  journal  of  world-wide  reputation,  with 
evidence  of  infamous  illegality  in  the  work  of  the 


78    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

Department  of  which  he  is  the  head,  that  his  re- 
sponsibility cannot  be  fastened  upon  him  by  any 
process  less  cumbersome  and  uncertain  than  that  of 
impeachment,  and  that  in  face  of  a  formidable  pub- 
lic indictment  of  his  conduct  he  needs  only  the 
friendly  consideration  of  the  Chief  Executive  to  hold 
him  immune  from  the  necessity  of  resigning  his  of- 
fice. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  recurring  national  elec- 
tions afford  the  people  an  opportunity  of  visiting 
their  displeasure  upon  such  an  Attorney  General. 
But  this  does  not  meet  the  point  under  discussion. 
In  the  first  place,  such  a  situation  might  arise 
when  a  national  election  was  still  some  years  in  the 
future;  in  the  second  place,  if  the  people  wished  to 
keep  the  Democratic  party  in  power,  on  general 
grounds,  they  would  either  have  to  forego  this  wish, 
so  that  they  might  be  rid  of  one  Democratic  offi- 
cial, or  to  forego  their  wish  to  punish  this  official,  in 
order  that  they  might  keep  his  party  in  power. 

I  may  recall  to  the  reader's  attention  another  pe- 
culiarity of  the  American  political  system  which  se- 
riously restricts  the  political  freedom  of  the  Amer- 
ican people.  In  England,  and  in  all  other  countries 
having  what  is  accurately  and  succinctly  described 
as  "responsible''  Government,  the  party  in  power  is 
always  in  the  position  to  carry  out  its  program  of 
legislation,  so  long  as  it  commands  a  majority  of 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    79 

legislative  votes;  and  when  it  no  longer  commands 
this  majority  it  relinquishes  the  reins  of  Government 
into  the  hands  of  those  who  can  muster  the  follow- 
ing necessary  to  carry  out  a  legislative  program. 
In  the  United  States,  however,  as  everybody  knows, 
the  power  of  legislation  may  be  in  the  hands  of  a 
Republican  Congress,  and  the  veto  power  in  the 
hands  of  a  Democratic  President,  or  vice  versa;  and 
one  party  may  have  a  majority  in  the  Senate  and  the 
other  party  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

This  peculiarity  extends  also  to  the  State  Gov- 
ernments, so  that  the  legislative  system  of  the  coun- 
try may  be  described  as  one  in  which  there  is  not 
anywhere  to  be  found  that  element  of  clearly  fixed 
responsibility  without  which  popular  Government  be- 
comes a  mere  fiction.  The  American  people  have, 
in  fact,  no  quick  asset  of  political  power  which  they 
can  apply  to  the  control  of  their  public  affairs. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  evils  arising  from  the  quality  of  irrespon- 
sibility in  the  American  political  system  have 
been  intensified  by  the  influence  of  two  idiosyn- 
crasies of  which  the  American  people  appear  to-day 
to  enjoy  a  monopoly — a  passion  for  legislation,  and 
a  blindness  to  the  extreme  importance  in  modern 
Government  of  a  sound  administrative  technique. 

The  amount  of  legislation  brought  forward  each 
year  in  the  United  States  is  almost  beyond  belief. 
In  the  Session  of  Congress  which  ended  in  Septem- 
ber, 19 1 6,  and  which  sat  for  only  nine  months,  there 
were  introduced  24,818  bills,  477  P^^^  resolutions, 
and  86  concurrent  resolutions.  Taking  the  bills 
alone,  we  may  compare  their  number  with  that  of  a 
session  of  the  British  Parliament.  The  Parliamen- 
tary session  which  ended  in  January,  19 16,  and 
which  had  lasted  for  fourteen  months,  had  before 
It  231  bills.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  if  mem- 
bers of  Parliament  had  introduced  bills  at  the  same 
rate  as  members  of  Congress  introduced  them,  the 
session  referred  to  above  would  have  yielded  28,952 
bills  instead  of  231 ;  and  that  mutatis  mutandis,  the 

80 


Democracy  and  the  Human  EquatiOxN    81 

session  of  Congress  would  have  yielded  153  bills 
instead  of  24,818. 

This  comparison  does  less  than  justice  to  the  sit- 
uation. It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Congress  Is 
only  one  of  fifty  legislatures  in  the  United  States, 
and  that  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  has  but  one  legislature.  In  the  five  years 
ending  with  1904  Parliament  passed  less  than  fif- 
teen hundred  laws;  in  the  same  period  the  Amer- 
ican legislatures  passed  more  than  forty-five  thou- 
sand! 

It  is  interesting  to  recall  in  this  connection  the 
solemn  warning  published  more  than  a  hundred 
years  ago  in  No.  LXII  of  The  Federalist: 

*'It  will  be  of  little  avail  to  the  people,  that  the 
laws  are  made  by  men  of  their  own  choice,  if  the 
laws  be  so  voluminous  that  they  cannot  be  read,  or 
so  incoherent  that  they  cannot  be  understood;  if 
they  be  repealed  or  revised  before  they  are  promul- 
gated, or  undergo  such  incessant  changes  that  no 
man,  who  knows  what  the  law  is  to-day,  can  guess 
what  it  will  be  to-morrow.  Law  is  defined  to  be  a 
rule  of  action;  but  how  can  that  be  a  rule,  which  is 
little  known,  and  less  fixed? 

**Another  effect  of  public  instability  is  the  unrea- 
sonable advantage  it  gives  to  the  sagacious,  the  en- 
terprising, and  the  moneyed  few  over  the  industri- 
ous and  uninformed  mass  of  the  people.     Every 


82    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

new  regulation  concerning  revenue,  or  in  any  way  af- 
fecting the  value  of  the  different  species  of  property, 
presents  a  new  harvest  to  those  who  watch  the 
change,  and  can  trace  its  consequences;  a  harvest, 
reared  not  by  themselves  but  by  the  toils  and  cares 
of  the  great  body  of  their  fellow  citizens.  This  is 
a  state  of  things  in  which  it  may  be  said  with  some 
truth  that  laws  are  made  for  the  few,  not  for  the 

many," 

The  overwhelming  flood  of  law  with  which  Con- 
gress  and  the  State  Legislatures  inundate  the  coun- 
try has  been  the  subject  of  a  great  deal  of  comment 
by  competent  observers.  The  Hon.  Samuel  W.  Mc- 
Call,  ex-Governor  of  Massachusetts,  in  his  excellent 
volume  on  *The  Business  of  Congress"— written 
after  eighteen  years  of  continuous  service  in  the 
House  of  Representatives— has  this  to  say  of  the 
bulk  which  American  law  has  attained: 

*The  shelves  of  our  libraries  are  already  groan- 
ing under  the  burden  of  statutes,  and  the  product 
of  a  few  decades  of  our  present  activity  will  be  so 
enormous  as  easily  to  surpass  one's  ability  to  com- 
prehend it.  We  are  a  great  manufacturing  peo- 
ple, and  we  delight  to  express  our  industrial  achieve- 
ments in  terms  that  dazzle  the  imagination.  But 
we  easily  lead  the  world  not  only  in  the  quantity 
of  iron  and  other  material  things  we  produce;  we 
lead  it  also  in  the  bulk  of  our  laws.     Many  of  these 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    83 

laws,  state  and  national,  are  of  a  penal  character, 
with  penalties  often  of  great  severity,  and  in  some 
instances,  with  their  artificial  standards,  conscience 
affords  no  guide  to  one  who  is  ignorant  of  their 
provisions.  Only  the  very  few  can  be  familiar  with 
the  multitude  of  these  statutes,  and  the  mass  of  men 
necessarily  know  little  or  nothing  about  them.  The 
crimes  they  create  would  in  some  cases  be  the  nat- 
ural expressions  of  a  benevolent  heart,  and  law- 
breaking  becomes  unavoidable  even  among  those 
who  are  best  disposed.  The  aspiration  to  multiply 
penal  laws  is  a  characteristic  trait  of  a  free  and  in- 
ventive people.  With  the  ingenuity  to  devise  legis- 
lative nostrums  to  cure  the  supposed  defects  in  the 
work  of  nature,  and  the  freedom  to  prescribe  them, 
man's  natural  powers  are  more  and  more  restrained 
by  statute.  He  is  endowed  with  statutory  virtues, 
and  finally  the  puny,  statute-made  creature  ceases  to 
stand  in  the  image  of  God,  whose  place  as  Creator 
the  law-making  agency  has  attempted  to  usurp.  We 
have  reached  that  temper,  for  the  moment  only  let 
it  be  hoped,  when  nothing  seems  so  galling  as  real 
freedom,  and  when  society  must  have  its  fetters, 
even  if  they  are  self-imposed.  .  .  .  And  unless  we 
shall  speedily  come  to  realize  the  truth  of  what 
Burke  said,' that  repeal  is  more  blessed  than  enact- 
ment, we  shall,  by  the  chains  we  are  constantly  forg- 
ing, reduce  ourselves  to  a  state  of  slavery,  or  at  least 


84    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

reach  a  condition  where  government  takes  the  place 
not  merely  of  the  father  and  mother,  but  of  the 
Deity,  also." 

These  words  were  written  ten  years  ago;  and  Mr. 
McCall  must  by  now  have  abandoned  the  hope  that 
the  American  lust  for  legislation  was  merely  a 
passing  appetite. 

The  situation  would  be  bad  enough  If  all  this 
law  were  carefully  drawn,  carefully  considered  be- 
fore enactment,  carefully  enforced,  and  carefully 
observed  in  its  operation  so  that  its  effects  might 
be  carefully  studied.  But  of  the  greater  part  of 
the  law  none  of  these  things  can  be  said.  Profes- 
sor  Charles  A.  Beard,  in  his  **American  Govern- 
ment and  Politics,''  refers  to  *'the  vast  amount  of 
irregular,  hasty  and  pernicious  legislation,'*  and 
adds  the  following  footnote  to  this  characterization: 
"A  recent  critic  of  American  methods  of  legislation, 
Mr.  Ernest  Brunken,*  sums  up  the  evils  of  our  ex- 
cessive legislative  activities  as  follows:  Owing  to 
the  prolixity,  confusion  and  constant  amendments 
of  our  laws  it  is  almost  impossible  for  the  layman 
or  lawyer  to  say  what  the  law  is  on  any  subject; 
the  legislatures,  in  drafting  laws,  all  too  frequently 
ignore  the  most  common  rules  of  adjudication  em- 
ployed by  the  courts;  there  is  a  constant  tendency 

♦Formerly  Legislative  Reference  Librarian  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    85 

to  neglect  the  effect  of  any  new  statute  upon  the 
existing  body  of  law;  many  of  our  bills  are  drawn 
by  men  who  are  not  lawyers  and  do  not  have  even 
the  most  elementary  knowledge  of  legal  require- 
ments; the  practice  of  log-rolling  leads  to  the  pass- 
age of  countless  measures  without  any  adequate 
scrutiny;  our  legislatures  are  so  organized  and  con- 
ducted as  to  prevent  the  discussion  and  detailed 
consideration  of  bills;  there  is  generally  little  or  no 
attempt    to   unify  the    output    of   each    legislative 

session." 

Serious  as  these  conditions  undoubtedly  are,  they 
represent  only  one  phase  of  the  unsatisfactory  state 
of  American  legislation.  This  element  in  Amer- 
ican government  has  been  profoundly  affected  by 
several  influences  which  have  combined  to  deprive 
it  of  all  resemblance  to  an  agency  for  giving  expres- 
sion to  the  popular  view  of  a  desirable  public  policy. 

There  has  been  a  gradual  subordination  of  all 
other  considerations  to  the  single  one  of  conserving 
and  exploiting  party  power;  and  this  has  been  ac- 
companied by  a  gradual  ^'improvement'*  of  machine 
technique  which  has  converted  legislatures  into  mere 
registering  instruments  for  machine  decisions.  The 
utter  helplessness  of  members  who  do  not  act  with 
the  party  in  control  of  the  legislature  is  disclosed 
in  a  pamphlet  issued  a  few  years  ago  by  the  Illinois 
Legislative  Voters'  League.    The  methods  employed 


86    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

in  the  various  States  differ,  of  course,  in  detail;  but 
the  following  extract  from  the  League's  pamphlec 
is  fairly  typical  of  what  occurs: 

"Consider  the  petty  annoyances  to  which  a  decent 
member  outside  the  ^organization'  may  be  subjected, 
and  the  methods  by  which  legitimate   legislation, 
backed  by  him,  may  be  blocked.     The  bill  goes  to 
an  unfriendly  committee.    The  chairman  refuses  to 
call  the  committee  together,  or,  when  forced  to  call 
it,  a  quorum  does  not  attend.    In  case  a  quorum  at- 
tends, the  point  may  be  raised  that  the  bill  is  not 
printed,  or  the  chairman  may  fail  to  have  the  orig- 
inal bill  with  him.    Action  may  be  postponed  on  vari- 
ous pretexts,  or  the  bill  may  be  referred  to  a  sub- 
committee.     The  committee  may  kill  the  bill  by 
laying  it  on  the  table.    On  the  other  hand,  the  com- 
mittee may  decide  that  the  bill  be  reported  to  the 
house  to  pass.     Then  a  common  practice  is  for  the 
chairman  to  pocket  the  bill,  delaying  to  report  it 
to  the  house  till  too  late  to  pass  it.    When  finally 
reported  to  the  house,  it  goes  on  the  calendar  to  be 
read  a   first  time  in  its  order.     Then  begins  the 
advancing  of  bills  by  unanimous  consent,  without 
waiting  to  reach  them  in  order.    Here  is  where  the 
organization  has  absolute  control.    Unanimous  con- 
sent is  subject  to  the  speaker's  acuteness  of  hearing. 
His  hearing  is  sharpened  or  dulled  according  to  the 
good  standing  of  the  objector  or  of  the  member 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    87 

pushing  the  bill.     If  one,  not  friendly  to  the  house 
^organization,'   wants  to  have   his  bill  considered 
over  an  objection,  he  must  move  to  suspend  the  rules. 
The  speaker  may  refuse  to  recognize  him,  or  may 
put  his  motion  and  declare  it  carried  or  not  carried 
as  suits  his  and  the  organization's  desires.     So  the 
pet  bills  are  jumped  over  others  ahead  of  them  on 
the  calendar,  while  the  ones  not  having  the  back- 
ing of  the  house  ^organization'  are  retired  farther 
and  farther  down  until  their  passage  becomes  hope- 
less.   If  the  bill  of  the  independent  member  reaches 
a  second  reading,  it  may  be  killed  by  striking  out 
the  enacting  clause  or  by  tacking  on  an  obnoxious 
amendment  that  makes  it  repulsive  to  its  former 
friends.  ...  To  carry  out  the  will  of  the  organ- 
ization, the  speaker  declares  amendments  carried 
or  the  contrary  on  viva  voce  vote.     Demands  for 
roll-calls    are    ignored    by    him    in    violation    of 
the  members'  constitutional  rights.     This  is  called 
*gaveling'  a  bill  through.     Formerly  the  gavel  was 
used  to  carry  through  political  measures   of   the 
majority  party  and  to  prevent  obstructive  and  dil- 
atory tactics  of  the  minority  party.     By  a  gradual 
growth  it  has  come  to  be  used  to  help  or  defeat 
legislation  in  which  the  organization  has  an  interest, 
although  the  majority  may  have  a  contrary  view. 
What  the  speaker  declares,  the  clerk  must  record, 
and  what  the  clerk  records  no  court  will  set  aside." 


88    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

(Taken  from  Beard's  ** American  Government  and 

Politics.") 

To  complete  the  foregoing  account  it  is  only 
necessary  to  add  that  if  a  bill  should  survive  the 
various  dangers  to  which  it  has  been  exposed  in 
the  lower  house,  it  has  to  run  the  gauntlet  of  sim- 
ilar assaults  in  the  upper  house;  and  that,  finally, 
it  must   face   the   ordeal  of  the   Governor's   veto 

power. 

The  position  of  the  ^^independent"  member  is, 
from    another    cause,    peculiarly   weak   under    the 
American  system.     Owing  to  the  fact  that  a  man 
can  be  elected  to  the  legislature  only  from  the  dis- 
trict in  which  he  resides,  the  chance  of  his  being 
able  to  retain  his  seat  becomes  less  in  direct  pro- 
portion   as  his  opposition   to   machine   politics  be- 
comes greater.     So  long  as  he  can  be  held  down  by 
the  ordinary  tactics  of  machine  control  all  he  has 
to  fear  are  the  ordinary  chances  of  a  political  cam- 
paign.    But  if,  being  a  member  of  the  controlling 
party,  he  should  defy  the  machine,  or  if,  being  a 
member  of  the  minority  part>s  his  vigor,  his  ability, 
or  his  popularity  should  make  him  a  really  formi- 
dable antagonist,  extraordinary  efforts  are  made  to 
kill  him,  politically,  in  his  district.     These  efforts 
are  by  no  means  confined  to  purely  political  action; 
and,  if  they  succe-ed,  the  man's  political  career  is  at 
an  end,  unless  he  is  prepared  to  start  over  again  in 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    89 

another  district  where,  indeed,  his  independence  may 
well  bring  down  upon  him  a  similar  retribution. 

In  England  a  man  is  protected  from  this  par- 
ticular risk  by  the  right  he  enjoys  of  offering  him- 
self as  a  candidate  in  any  electoral  district  in  the 
country.  The  effect  of  this  freedom — which  is  no 
less  a  freedom  of  the  voters  to  seek  a  representative 
from  any  part  of  the  country,  than  It  is  of  the  can- 
didate to  seek  election  wherever  he  believes  his 
character,  his  record  and  his  opinions  offer  him  a 
chance  of  success — is  to  minimize  the  influence  of 
local  issues  and  of  local  pressure  and  to  endow  a 
political  career  with  such  measure  of  security  as 
encourages  a  higher  type  of  man  to  enter  political 
life  than  the  American  system  attracts  to  Itself. 

It  was  largely  through  the  suppression  of  the 
^independent"  member,  and  the  resulting  concen- 
tration of  power  in  the  hands  of  a  small  clique  of 
machine  politicians,  that  the  opportunity  lay  open 
to  special  interests  to  seize  control  of  State  legisla- 
tures and,  where  the  judges  are  elected,  of  the  State 
judiciaries. 

Within  the  past  twenty  years  abundant  evidence 
has  been  brought  to  light  of  the  gross  misuse  of 
the  legislative  and,  less  frequently,  of  the  judicial 
authority  of  a  number  of  States  to  serve  the  inter- 
ests of  railroad  magnates,  of  insurance  companies, 
of  financial  institutions,  and  of  industrial  corpora- 


go    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

tions.  As  a  result  of  the  successive  ^'exposures" 
which  have  attracted  public  attention  almost  con- 
tinuously since  1900,  a  movement  of  protest  has 
arisen.  The  movement  has  given  birth  to  new 
political  parties,  to  new  organs  of  publicity,  to  anti- 
trust legislation,  to  the  regulation  of  lobbying,^  to 
changes  in  the  machinery  of  elections,  to  the  limita- 
tion  of  campaign  expenditures. 

These  agencies  have,  no  doubt,  exercised  some 
restraint  over  the  abuses  they  were  designed  to 
destroy;  but  their  principal  effect  has  been  to  Impose 
upon  the  instruments  of  corruption  the  necessity  of 
refining  their  methods.  The  resort  to  direct  cor- 
ruption  by  powerful  special  interests  has,  In  the 
opinion  of  many  observers,  been  much  less  frequent 
in  recent  years  than  it  was  formerly.  It  is  a  mat- 
ter about  which  It  Is  almost  impossible  to  get  at  the 
actual  facts;  but  there  is  good  reason  to  suppose 
that  this  change  has  actually  occurred. 

It  Is  very  easy,  however,  to  misinterpret  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  change,  and  to  mistake  the  re-forma- 
tion of  the  legions  of  corruption  for  their  reforma- 
tion. What  has  happened  is  that  the  secret  agent 
has  been  to  some  extent  replaced  by,  or,  on  a  more 
sinister  interpretation,  has  been  supplied  with  a 
a  most  valuable  colleague  In  the  publicity  agent. 
No  great  corporation  Is  without  Its  publicity  depart- 
ment; and  the  work  of  such  departments  is  con- 


I 


1 


1 
I 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    91 

ducted  under  the  double  advantage  of  being  within 
the  law,  and  of  wearing,  to  the  eye  of  the  uninitiated, 
the  aspect  of  an  "educational''  campaign.  Every 
one  is  aware  of  the  enormous  extent  to  which  cor- 
porations are  now  employing  publicity  methods. 
The  newspapers  and  magazines  carry  their  adver- 
tisements by  the  page,  their  pamphlets,  circulars 
and  letters  reach  every  man  and  woman  whose  name 
is  in  a  directory.  If  much  of  this  material  would 
not  bear  a  moment's  critical  scrutiny,  its  influence 
is  nevertheless  extremely  powerful,  because  the  vast 
majority  of  those  whom  it  reaches  are  congenitally 
incapable  of  distinguishing  between  assertion  and 
evidence.  The  specious  quality  of  these  appeals  is 
enhanced  by  the  use  of  pictures,  diagrams  and  sta- 
tistical curves  to  the  point  where  a  great  appearance 
of  authenticity  is  created. 

The  exact  returns  from  these  campaigns  of 
**education"  are  known  only  to  those  who  know 
what  their  aims  are,  what  their  cost  is,  and  what 
results  they  produce.  But  the  public  has  every 
reason  to  know  that  there  are  very  substantial  re- 
turns. If  there  is  any  truth  in  the  claims  of  the 
purveyors  of  ordinary  commercial  publicity  we  are 
justified  in-  assuming  that  a  sufficiency  of  money 
employed  with  sufficient  skill  can  make  a  credulous 
people  believe  that  the  X.  Y.  Z.  Packing  Company, 
or  the  Z.  Y.  X.  Milk  Corporation,  is  conducting 


92    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

Its  business  so  little  for  profit  and  so  much  for 
**social  service"  that  the  proposed  legislation,  the 
proposed  investigation  or  the  proposed  prosecution 
would  be  welcomed  by  it,  were  it  not  that  it  would 
be  sure  to  send  up  the  price  of  meat,  or  of  milk, 
as  the  case  might  be. 

The  purchase  of  public  opinion,  as  differentiated 
from  the  purchase  of  votes  and  from  the  purchase 
of  legislators,  threatens  to  become  a  more  serious 
evil  than  any  of  the  more  primitive  forms  of  cor- 
ruption. To  whatever  extent  Government  is  public 
opinion  translated  into  action  through  the  agency 
of  legislation,  heavily  financed  propaganda  can  be 
made  an  all-powerful  determinant;  to  whatever 
extent  Government  is  private  interest  translated  into 
action  through  the  corruption  of  agency,  propaganda 
can  afford  to  corruption  the  most  valuable  support 
and  confer  upon  it  the  most  valuable  immunities. 

In  connection  with  American  legislation  we  ob- 
serve, then,  the  confusion  which  results  itom  an 
unknowable  and  unworkable  amount  of  law;  the  un- 
certainty, the  delay  and  the  expense  which  carelessly- 
drafted  law  introduces  into  all  litigation;  the  futility 
of  ill-considered  measures;  the  contempt  for  all  law 
which  the  lax  enforcement  of  law  never  fails  to 
produce;  and  the  perversions  of  the  law-making 
and  of  the  law-enforcing  agencies  which  arise  from 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    93 

party  pressure,  from  machine  control,  from  direct 
bribery,  and  from  the  manipulation  of  public  opinion. 
In  a  word,  it  is  clear  that  even  if  the  widely-held 
belief  that  in  legislation  alone  there  is  to  be  found 
a  cure-all  for  every  kind  of  public  and  private  mal- 
ady were  anything  more  than  a  mere  delusion,  the 
method  of  its  enactment,  the  influences  to  which  it 
is  subjected  before  it  reaches  the  statute  books,  the 
influences  to  which  its  enforcement  is  subjected  after 
it  has  become  law,  combine  to  deprive  American 
legislation  of  whatever  curative  properties  it  might 
otherwise  possess. 

If  one  deliberately  elects  to  adopt  a  patent- 
medicine  theory  of  legislation,  the  method  founded 
on  such  a  theory — which  bestows  nearly  two  hun- 
dred laws  a  week  on  the  country — has  this  to 
recommend  it,  that  it  ministers  to  the  same  popular 
ta'ste  which  has  led  the  American  people  to  adopt 
a  patent-medicine  theory  of  therapeutics.  In  each 
instance  the  people  do  actually  get  something  upon 
which  they  set  a  great  value.  In  the  one  it  is  not 
good  Government,  in  the  other  it  is  not  good  health; 
but  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other  the  people  do 
enjoy  the  freedom  of  expressing  their  will  in  terms 
of  their  faith.  History  is  packed  with  evidence 
that  the  opportunit>^  of  exercising  this  kind  of  free- 
dom is  one  of  the  most  powerful  appeals  to  which 


I 


94    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

humanity  Is  accessible ;  and  that,  terrible  as  the  con- 
sequences have  often  been,  nothing  has  ever  seri- 
ously impaired  its  popularity. 

The  irrationality  of  the  patent-medicine  theory 
of  political  action  is  exhibited  in  a  striking  form 
when  we  turn  from  the  field  of  legislation  to  that 
of  the  administration  of  the  Government  which  legis- 
lation creates.  It  might  be  supposed  that  where 
legislation  is  regarded — as  it  seems  to  be  almost 
universally  regarded  in  the  United  States — as  some- 
thing which  will  fill  the  place  of  individual  charac- 
ter and  intelligence,  there  would  exist  a  general 
demand  that  law,  whether  civil,  criminal  or  regula- 
tive, should  be  efficiently  administered,  and  a  gen- 
eral curiosity  as  to  the  results.  It  is  notorious  that 
in  each  of  these  matters  there  exists,  on  the  con- 
trary, a  general  indifference.  Let  us  glance  first 
at  the  administration  of  the  Government. 

An  early  Constitution  of  Massachusetts,  after 
providing  for  the  separation  of  the  executive,  the 
judicial  and  the  legislative  powers,  declared,  in  a 
phrase  which  has  enjoyed  a  good  deal  of  popularity, 
what  the  object  of  such  separation  was — "To  the 
end  that  there  may  be  a  Government  of  laws  and 
not  of  men.''  This  was  said  at  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century;  and  at  the  time  the  great  issue 
in  the  public  mind  was  that  of  emancipating  the 
American  colonies  from  the  rule  of  a  group  of  men 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    95 

in  London,  and  of  securing  a  Government  whose 
laws  would  be  made  locally,  irrespective  of  what 
London  thought  of  them. 

It  was  not  unnatural  that  in  such  circumstances 
a  Government  of  laws  and  not  of  men  should  have 
appealed  strongly  to  the  people  of  Massachusetts. 
The  obvious  consideration  that  laws  are  made  by 
men  and  put  into  effect  by  men  had  much  less 
weight  in  the  eighteenth  century  than  it  has  in  the 
twentieth.  In  those  day*  legislation  concerned  itself 
with  comparatively  few  matters,  and  these  matters 
were  comparatively  simple  in  their  nature;  they 
hardly  extended  beyond  collecting  the  taxes,  keeping 
the  post-roads  in  repair,  punishing  a  few  criminals 
and  misdemeanants,  impounding  stray  dogs,  and 
administering  the  civil  law.  None  of  these  tasks 
called  for  any  high  degree  of  technical  skill  either 
in  the  making  of  laws  and  regulations  or  in  their 
enforcement. 

What  is  the  scope  of  Government  to-day?  I  get 
up  in  the  morning  and  go  into  my  bathroom:  the 
Department  of  Justice  has  been  much  interested  in 
the  Bath  Tub  Trust.  I  turn  on  the  water:  the 
Bureau  of  Public  Franchises  and  the  Bureau  of 
Bacteriology  rise  before  me.  I  grasp  my  tablet 
of  soap :  it  is  made  in  Chicago  by  the  Beef  Trust, 
the  Department  of  Justice  has  to  know  whether  it 
is  the  product  of  an  agreement  in  restraint  of  trade. 


96    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

and  whether  the  manufacturer  secured  a  rebate  from 
the  railroad  which  transported  it.     I  dry  myself 
with  a  cotton  towel:  the  Department  of  Agriculture 
has  helped  to  afford  me  this  convenience  by  furnish- 
ing the  cotton-grower  with  a  report  on  the  boll- 
weevil.     I  step  out  onto  my  bath  mat :  it  is  an  im- 
ported product— was  the  consular  invoice  correct, 
was  the  full  amount  of  duty  paid  on  it  by  the  New 
York  customs  broker?     Presently  I  find  myself  m 
the  kitchen,  and  I  light  my  gas  stove— the  gas  is 
the  concern  of  the  Government.    I  put  a  lamb  chop 
on  the  broiler,  and  as  it  cooks  I  speculate  as  to 
whether  the  purple  stamp  of  the  Government  meat- 
inspector  contains  any  poison.     Presently  I  take  a 
street-car  to  my  place  of  business:  the  street-car 
itself,  the  power  by  which  it  is  propelled,  the  track 
along  which  it  runs,  the  stopping-places  along  the 
route,  are  all  affected  by  Government  regulations. 
I  enter  my  office  building:  the  structure  is  the  con- 
cern of  the  Government,  on  account  of  the  fire  laws; 
the  business  1  do  in  it  is  the  concern  of  the  Govern- 
ment in  a  dozen  particulars  dealt  with  by  the  Income 
Tax  Law,  the  Interstate  Commerce  Law,  the  Sher- 
man Act,  the  Pure  Food  Law,  and  so  on.     Whilst 
I  am  reading  my  mail  the  telephone  bell  rings— the 
telephone  is  the  concern  of  the  Government— some 
one  tells  me  that  my  child— the  child  is  the  concern 
of  the  Government— at  the  public  school— the  school 


I 


H 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    97 

is  the  concern  of  the  Government — has  got  the 
diphtheria — the  diphtheria  is  the  concern  of  the 
Government — I  hasten  off  to  pick  up  my  physician — 
the  physician  is  the  concern  of  the  Government — 
we  go  to  the  school  in  his  automobile — the  auto- 
mobile is  the  concern  of  the  Government — later  on 
I  pay  him  with  a  National  Bank  bill — the  National 
Bank  is  the  concern  of  the  Government;  and  all  this 
is  no  more  than  a  sketchy  outline  of  what  Govern- 
ment is  concerned  with  to-day. 

If  we  leave  the  field  of  law-making,  and  enter 
that  of  the  administration  of  Government,  we  are 
now  on  ground  where  the  American  people  enjoy 
more  freedom  than  other  peoples,  since  they  elect 
by  popular  vote  a  larger  number  of  their  officials. 
Here,  again,  we  find  the  state  of  affairs  extremely 
unsatisfactory. 

In  the  matter  of  conducting  the  public  business 
all  Governments  are  alike  in  one  particular,  namely, 
that  the  great  majority  of  public  servants  are  ex- 
clusively occupied  in  carrying  on  the  official  routine, 
and  that  routine  efficiency  is  all  that  is  demanded 
of  them.  Their  technical  qualifications  can  be  suffi- 
ciently determined  by  civil  service  examinations; 
and,  provided  the  government — Federal,  State, 
County,  or  Municipal — does  not  pay  salaries  much 
lower  than  those  offered  by  private  employers,  the 
work  of  the  subordinate  Government  staff  will  not 


98    Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

be  much  worse  in  quality  than  that  with  which 
private  employers  have  to  be  content,  though  it 
will  probably  be  less  in  quantity. 

Omitting  all  consideration  of  whether  the  civil 
service  examinations  are  severe  enough  to  eliminate 
incompetent  candidates  for  Government  posts,  and 
of  the  number  of  positions  which  fall  outside  the 
civil  service  rule,  what  distinguishes  one  Government 
from  another,  on  the  administrative  side,  is  the  type 
of  man  chosen  to  fill  the  important  offices  near  the 
top  of  the  official  ladder — the  men  who  are  respon- 
sible for  departmental  policy,  and  who  give  the 
tone  to  departmental  work. 

It  is  all  very  well  to  talk  about  a  Government  of 
laws  and  not  of  men;  it  is  even  excellent  to 
talk  about  it  when  we  are  attempting  to  secure  the 
enactment  of  good  measures;  but  those  who  imagine 
that  the  fight  for  good  Government  is  won  if  and 
when  the  good  measures  have  become  law — and 
they  appear  to  comprise  almost  the  whole  popula- 
tion of  the  country — are  simply  making  it  inevitable 
that  whatever  goodness  there  is  In  Government  will 
remain  between  the  front  and  the  back  covers  of 
the  law  books,  and  will  never  be  liberated  into  the 
open  spaces  of  administration. 

It  is  a  most  unfortunate  circumstance,  but  one 
which  has  to  be  faced  with  perfect  frankness  (unless 
our  attitude  toward  Government  is  always  to  remain 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation    99 

purely  rhapsodical)  that  whereas  bad  Government 
can  always  look  after  itself,  good  Government  must 
always  have  some  one  to  look  after  ic. 

As  between   bad   administrative   law  with   com- 
petent and  honest  administrators,  and  good  admin- 
istrative law  with  incompetent  or  dishonest  admin- 
istrators, the  former  often  yields  good  Government; 
the  latter,  never.     My  own  observation  in  many 
countries  leaves  me  with  the  firm  conviction  that 
there  is,  on  the  whole,  far  more  incompetence  in 
Government  than  there  is  corruption,  and  that,  on 
the  whole,  incompetence  is  the  greater  of  the  two 
evils.     You  can  bring  pressure  to  bear  upon  a  com- 
petent but  dishonest  man  to  forego  his  dishonesty 
and  to  give  full  rein  to  his  competence — high  pay, 
the  applause  of  his  fellowmen,  the  threat  of  power 
lost    through    its    misuse,    the    promise    of    power 
retained   through   its   distinguished  exercise.     The 
honest    but    Incompetent    official    is    the    curse    of 
Governments.     His  public  service  is  neither  more 
competent  because  he  is  honest,  nor  more  honest 
because  he  Is  incompetent;  and  while  his  honesty 
does    nothing    toward    bringing    competence    into 
repute,   his   incompetence   brings   honesty  into   dis- 
repute. 

The  character  and  ability  of  the  higher  admin- 
istratlv^e  officials  exert,  then,  the  most  powerful 
influence,  not  upon  what  legislatures  decree  shall 


loo  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

be  the  conduct  of  public  affairs,  but  upon  what  the 
conduct  of  public  affairs  actually  is.  If  we  assume — 
and  it  is  an  assumption  almost  universally  made  by 
those  who  write  and  speak  on  Government,  without 
the  slightest  evidence  to  support  It — that  most  peo- 
ple want  good  Government,  that  is  to  say,  honest 
and  efficient  administration  of  public  affairs,  it  is 
impossible  to  reconcile  this  assumption  with  the 
scale  of  salaries  which  the  public  offers  its  higher 
officials. 

There  is  no  country  In  the  world  where  It  Is 
easier  to  make  money  than  it  is  in  the  United  States, 
or  one  In  which  it  is  more  difficult  to  keep  It.  It 
Is  the  existence  of  this  dilemma  whi^h  compels  the 
great  industrial,  commercial  and  financial  magnates 
to  pay  the  large  salaries  they  do  to  thoroughly 
competent  technicians  and  executives.  Compared 
with  these  salaries  the  pay  of  the  higher  Government 
officials  Is  a  mere  pittance.  There  are  thousands 
of  men  in  the  United  States  who  draw  salaries  or 
fees  from  private  employers  In  excess  of  fifteen 
thousand  dollars  a  year,  hundreds  who  draw  more 
than  twenty  thousand,  scores  who  draw  more  than 
fifty  thousand.  The  President  of  the  United  States 
Is,  I  believe,  the  only  public  oflicial  whose  salary  Is 
more  than  fifteen  thousand  dollars;  and  the  number 
who  are  paid  more  than  ten  thousand  certainly  does 
not  exceed  a  hundred. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  ioi 

Now,  making  allowance  for  a  few  exceptional 
cases,  nothing  Is  more  certain  than  that  In  Govern- 
ment, as  In  all  other  undertakings,  what  you  get  Is 
what  you  pay  for,  that  you  can  no  more  get  the 
services  of  a  twenty-thousand-dollar-a-year  man  for 
a  salary  of  ten  thousand  than  you  can  get  a  ten- 
thousand-dollar  diamond  for  five  thousand. 

The  niggardliness  of  ofl^clal  salaries  In  the  United 
States  has  been  defended  on  the  ground  that  If  all 
a  man  works  for  Is  money,  money  will  not  make 
him  give  you  good  work;  that  what  we  need  In 
public  ofliicials  is  the  spirit  of  service;  and  that  low 
salaries  will  keep  undesirable  men  out  of  Government 
posts.  Had  I  not  encountered  this  view  again  and 
again  I  should  have  found  It  difficult  to  believe  that 
any  one  could  seriously  advance  a  theory  that  Gov- 
ernment service  has  the  unique  characteristic  that 
high  pay  means  poor  quality  of  service  and  that 
poor  pay  means  high  quality. 

Few  people,  I  imagine,  have  given  much  serious 
thought  to  the  chain  of  causation  which  determines 
whether  or  not  a  Government  Is  well  administered. 
So  far  as  the  lower  grades  of  the  public  services  are 
concerned,  low  salaries  have  no  more  serious  results 
than  to  multiply  the  number  of  Government  officials 
and  to  place  on  the  public  pay-roll  thousands  of  men 
and  women  who  might  otherwise  be  out  of  employ- 
ment.    But  the  poor  salaries  paid  in  the  higher 


102  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

grades  involve  the  most  disastrous  cojisequences  to 
the  administrative  system  and  cost  the  public  many 
times  over  what  they  save  by  their  parsimony. 

When  it  is  reflected,  on  the  one  hand,  what  a 
highly  technical  matter  the  administration  of  Gov- 
ernment has  become,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  what 
devastation  can  be  wrought  by  incompetence  or  by 
corruption  in  an  administrative  system  as  delicately 
articulated  as  a  modern  administrative  system  must 
necessarily  be,  it  should  be  clear  to  every  intelligent 
citizen  that  every  defect  in  the  skill  or  in  the  integ- 
rity of  public  servants  above  the  clerical  rank  is 
something  which  carries  its  influence  into  almost 
every  phase  of  the  life  of  every  human  being  in 
the  country. 

That  the  best  skill  of  the  nation  and  its  highest 
integrity  are  not  to  be  found  in  a  larger  measure 
than  they  are  in  the  service  of  the  Government  is 
due  lo  the  fact  that  private  interests  realize  the 
indispensableness  of  these  qualities  in  large  affairs, 
and  that  the  public  does  not  realize  it;  that  private 
interests  are  willing  to  pay  for  these  qualities,  and 
that  the  public  is  not. 

But  there  is  another  aspect  of  this  subject  which 
IS  at  least  as  important  as  that  which  concerns 
rewards  in  money.  A  business  career  is  a  real 
career,  and  public  service  is  not  a  career  at  all:  it 
is  merely  a  form  of  employment. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  103 

A  man  who  works  for  a  great  corporation  knows 
that  if  he  has  ability  and  uses  it  he  can  look  forward 
with  confidence  to  promotion  by  successive  stages 
to  positions  which  will  give  him  more  interesting 
work  and  more  responsible  work;  and  he  knows  that 
it  is  upon  his  work  alone  that  these  things  depend. 
He  thus  has  every  incentive  to  give  the  best  that 
is  in  him.  Apart  from  moral  incentive,  there  is 
the  very  practical  one  that  if  he  gives  less  than  his 
best  he  will  be  held  in  one  place,  then  put  in  a 
lower  one,  then  dismissed. 

In  the  public  service  the  conditions  are  wholly 
different.  Here,  if  a  man  goes  in  under  civil  serv- 
ice rules,  he  knows  that  his  best  efforts  cannot 
insure  him  quick  promotion,  and  that  something 
very  much  less  than  his  best  effort  will  suflice  to 
keep  him  In  the  service.  If  he  is  an  elected  oflScial 
he  knows  that  so  far  as  his  retention  of  office  is 
concerned  it  is  not  primarily  upon  his  services  to 
the  public  but  upon  his  services  to  the  party  that 
his  tenure  of  oflUce  chiefly  depends.  It  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at,  when  these  facts  are  considered,  that, 
altogether  apart  from  any  question  of  the  amount 
of  corruption  in  the  Government  service,  there 
should  be  so  little  evidence  of  distinguished  com- 
petence in  it.  It  has  become  the  refuge  of  the 
mediocre,  and  the  paradise  of  the  routineer. 

It  is  possible  that  the  American  people  would 


I04  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

have  developed  a  deeper  interest  In  the  administra- 
tive side  of  Government  if  they  had  had  at  their 
disposal  some  annual  publication  which,  through  the 
medium  of  impartial  and  interestingly  written  re- 
ports, would  supply  a  real  account  of  the  state  of 
the  country.  But  so  far  as  the  general  conditions 
of  the  country  are  affected  by  the  administration 
of  the  Government,  the  American  people  are  com- 
pletely in  the  dark  as  to  whether  they  are  advancing 
to  a  higher  level  or  falling  back  to  a  lower,  and  as 
to  whether  they  are  in  a  better  or  in  a  worse 
position  than  other  countries. 

In  regard  to  the  operation  of  the  criminal  law, 
no  statistics  are  available,  for  the  whole  country, 
showing  the  number  of  crimes  reported  to  the  police, 
the  number  of  cases  brought  into  court,  the  num- 
ber of  convictions  secured,  the  nature  of  the  sen- 
tences imposed,  the  proportion  of  convictions  to 
acquittals,  the  proportion  of  successful  appeals  to 
the  number  of  cases  tried,  the  number  of  sentences 
carried  out  In  full,  the  number  carried  out  In  part, 
the  number  of  pardons  granted,  or  the  criminal 
record  of  habitual  offenders.  In  the  absence  of  such 
statistics  It  Is  impossible  to  ascertain  the  state  of 
crime  In  the  country,  to  measure  the  efficiency  of 
the  police  or  of  the  criminal  courts,  to  observe  the 
attitude  of  American  juries  to  various  kinds  of  crime, 
to  know  the  extent  to  which  executive  clemency 


\ 


I 


i 


\ 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  105 

interferes  with  the  administration  of  criminal  jus- 
tice, or  to  keep  informed  as  to  the  size  of  the  class 
of  habitual  criminals. 

In  regard  to  the  operation  of  tffe  civil  law,  there 
are  no  statistics  available  for  the  whole  country, 
showing  the  number,  character  and  disposition  of 
civil  suits;  and  In  the  absence  of  such  statistics  It 
is  impossible  to  know  what  the  actual  relation  Is 
between  borrowers  and  lenders,  between  landlords 
and  tenants,  between  employers  and  employees, 
between  purchasers  and  vendors,  between  parties  to 
contracts. 

In  regard  to  the  operation  of  administrative  law 
there  are  no  statistics  available  for  the  whole  coun- 
try, showing  the  number  and  disposition  of  cases 
arising  under  the  regulations  covering  sanitation, 
food  supply,  traffic,  weights  and  measures,  and  so 
on.  In  regard  to  other  matters  of  the  greatest 
importance,  which  do  not  always  come  within  the 
scope  of  the  law,  there  Is  an  equal  lack  of  informa- 
tion. There  are  no  complete  data  available  show- 
ing the  amount,  nature  and  distribution  of  diseases 
In  the  country,  nor  the  total  number  of  strikes  and 
lockouts,  with  details  of  their  cause  and  settlement. 
Even  the  simplest  vital  statistics — those  relating  to 
births  and  deaths — are  lacking.  Writing  on  this 
point  in  1913,  Dr.  Cressey  L.  Wilbur,  Chief  Statis- 
tician of  the  Bureau  of  the  Census,  said:    *The 


\ 


I 


1 06  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

United  States  is  exceptional  among  the  countries  of 
the  civilized  world  in  that  there  are  no  national 
system  of  vital  statistics  and  no  complete  records 
of  births  and  deaths  for  the  country  as  a  whole." 
From  a  statistical  table  printed  by  Dr.  Wilbur  it 
is  seen  that  complete  statistics  of  births,  deaths  and 
marriages  were  available  to  him  from  Austria,  Bel- 
gium, Bulgaria,  England  and  Wales,  France,  Ger- 
many, Holland,  Hungary,  Italy,  Japan,  New  South 
Wales,  New  Zealand  and  Sweden.  These  statistics 
covered  a  period  of  twenty-eight  years  in  each  coun- 
try. For  the  United  States  no  figures  could  be 
given  for  marriages;  the  figures  for  births  covered 
only  two  years  and  referred  to  only  one  quarter  of 
the  population  of  the  continental  United  States; 
and  the  figures  for  deaths  covered  only  five  years, 
and  referred  to  little  more  than  half  of  the  popula- 
tion. 

An  enormous  amount  of  material  has,  of  course, 
been  published  in  regard  to  most  of  the  matters 
referred  to  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs,  in  the  form 
of  books,  brochures,  magazine  articles  and  papers 
in  the  proceedings  of  a  number  of  scientific  societies; 
but  valuable  as  many  of  these  contributions  are, 
most  of  them  cover  special  periods  and  special 
localities,  and  they  lack  both  the  authority  which 
attaches  to  official  publications,  and  the  usefulness 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  107 

and  accessibility  of  comprehensive  surveys  issued  at 
regular  intervals. 

In  the  circumstances  described  above  it  is  impos- 
sible for  any  American  to  inform  himself  accurately 
of  the  general  state  of  the  country  at  any  moment, 
still  less  of  the  details  of  its  social  movement.  He 
can  find  out  what  the  population  is;  what  the  range 
of  temperature  was  last  year  at  Abilene,  Tex.,  and 
at  Winnemucca,  Nev. ;  the  amount  of  unappropriated 
and  unreserved  land  in  the  various  States;  the  value 
of  the  crops,  of  the  imports,  of  the  exports,  of  the 
manufactures;  the  amount  of  the  public  debt,  of  the 
coinage  and  paper  money,  of  the  bank  clearings,  of 
the  life  insurance  written  by  fraternal  orders,  of  the 
revenue  receipts  per  capita  from  fines,  forfeitures, 
and  escheats  in  West  Hoboken,  N.  J.;  and  much 
more  in  the  domain  of  purely  material  things. 

But  if  he  should  wish  to  obtain  any  knowledge 
definite  enough  and  comprehensive  enough  to  be 
really  useful  to  him,  about  the  state  of  crime,  of 
disease,  of  business  and  of  social  morality;  about 
the  relations  between  landlord  and  tenant,  or  be- 
tween debtor  and  creditor;  or  about  the  purity  of 
the  nation's  food,  or  the  accuracy  of  its  weights 
and  measures;  or  about  whether  he  pays  much  more 
or  much  less  than  other  people  for  his  water  supply, 
for  his  street  and  house  lighting,  for  his  police  pro- 


io8  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

tection,  for  his  road  building — in  a  word,  if  he 
wants  to  know  definitely  about  any  matter  which 
directly  affects  his  actual  daily  life,  he  has  no  means 
of  finding  out;  and  this  inability  to  discover  the 
facts  has,  no  doubt,  been  a  powerful  influence  in 
keeping  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  best  intelligence 
of  the  country  out  of  politics. 

It  is  the  scarcity  among  the  people  of  definite  and 
accurate  information  about  the  social  conditions  of 
their  own  and  other  countries  which  has  made  the 
discussion  of  public  affairs  in  the  United  States  un- 
real to  the  point  of  comedy,  and  has  left  the  field 
open  for  an  irresponsible  and  endless  warfare  of 
assertion  and  counter-assertion. 

In  a  conflict  of  this  nature  every  advantage  lies 
with  the  rhapsodists,  up  to  a  certain  point.  Their 
supply  of  ammunition  is  limited  only  by  the  power 
of  their  imagination;  and  the  target  at  which  they 
direct  their  fusillade  is  so  large  that  it  cannot  be 
missed — it  is  no  less  a  mark  than  the  credulity, 
the  vanity,  the  ignorance,  the  forgetfulness  and  the 
indifference  of  man.  For  more  than  a  century  the 
American  people  have  been  under  fire  from  the 
batteries  of  the  Democratic  enthusiasts;  and  so  ef- 
fective has  been  this  unremitting  assault  upon  the 
national  emotions  that  the  tortures  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion were  not  more  potent  to  secure  theological 
orthodoxy  than  oratory  has  been  to  secure  political 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  109 

orthodoxy.  Under  the  combined  influence  of  elo- 
quence, misrepresentation  and  special  pleading. 
Democracy  in  the  United  States  lost,  many  years 
ago,  all  the  qualities  which  made  it  a  good  form  of 
Government,  and  took  on  those  which  have  made 
it  a  bad  form  of  religion.  It  ceased  to  be  a  good 
form  of  Government  as  soon  as  faith  and  not  good 
works  became  the  test  of  Americanism;  and  it  failed 
to  become  a  good  religion  when  faith  did  not  pro- 
duce good  works. 

The  rhapsodists,  whose  influence  has  so  thor- 
oughly narcotized  American  political  thought,  fall 
into  two  classes.  One  comprises  the  professional 
politicians  whose  aim  is  to  stimulate  patriotism  to 
the  highest  degree  and  then  to  harness  it  to  the  serv- 
ice of  their  party;  the  other  is  made  up  chiefly  of 
men  and  women,  of  high  character  and  of  noble 
impulses,  who  are  incapable  of  retaining  in  their 
intellectual  systems  anything  which  could  tarnish  a 
beautiful  faith  in  the  natural  goodness  of  all  men, 
or,  at  least,  in  the  magic  power  of  Democracy  to 
make  all  men  good. 

The  following  quotations,  of  which  the  first  and 
the  last  are  separated  by  nearly  a  hundred  years, 
will  serve  to  define  the  meaning  I  attach  to  the  term 
**rhapsodist." 

1824.  Edward  Everett,  in  an  Oration  before  the 
Society  of  Phi  Beta  Kappa,  said:    **Our  popular 


m 


no  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

institutions  are  favorable  to  intellectual  develop- 
ment because  their  foundations  are  in  dear  nature. 
.  .  .  They  bring  up  remote  and  shrinking  talent 
into  the  cheerful  field  of  competition.  .  .  .  They 
bestow  upon  all  who  deserve  it  or  seek  it  the  only 
patronage  that  ever  struck  out  a  spark  of  celestial 
fire  .  .  .  the  patronage  of  fair  opportunity." 

What  can  one  say  of  statements  of  this  kind, 
coming  from  a  man  of  Everett's  great  abilities? 
At  the  age  of  twenty-one  he  was  professor  of  Greek 
at  Harvard;  at  twenty-six  he  was  editor  of  the 
North  American  Review;  between  his  thirty-first 
and  his  forty-first  years  he  was  a  member  of  Con- 
gress; at  forty-two  he  was  Governor  of  Massachu- 
setts; at  forty-seven  he  was  Minister  to  Great 
Britain;  at  fifty-two  he  was  President  of  Harvard; 
at  fifty-eight  he  succeeded  Daniel  Webster  as  Secre- 
tary of  State  of  the  United  States;  at  fifty-nine  he 
entered  the  United  States  Senate. 

As  he  was  one  of  the  earliest,  so  also  was  he 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  the  rhapsodists; 
and  of  those  I  quote  here  he  is  the  only  one  whose 
views  I  will  discuss. 

**Our  popular  institutions  are  favorable  to  in- 
tellectual development.  ..."  Either  this  means 
that  American  institutions  are  more  favorable  to 
intellectual  development  than  are  those  of  other 
nations,  or  It  means  nothing,  read  with  its  context. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  i  i  i 

At  the  time  of  Everett's  oration  the  United  States 
had  developed  only  two  men  whose  intellects, 
measured  by  those  of  all  ages,  fall  into  the  highest 
rank — Alexander  Hamilton  and  Benjamin  Franklin. 
Each  of  these  men  was  born  a  British  subject;  and 
each  of  them  got  his  education,  made  his  career,  and 
reached  the  height  of  his  intellectual  development 
not  under  **our  popular  institutions,**  but  under 
British  colonial  institutions,  and,  between  1776  and 
1787,  under  no  institutions.  If  we  observe  the 
intellectual  history  of  the  United  States  since  **our 
popular  institutions**  were  established  in  1787,  there 
is  nothing  whatever  to  show  that  these  institutions 
have  been  more  favorable  to  the  development  of 
great  intellects  than  have  been  the  institutions  of 
England,  of  France,  of  Germany,  of  Ireland,  of 
Scotland,  of  Italy,  or  of  Russia,  to  go  no  further. 

"...  Their  foundations  are  in  dear  nature." 
Even  after  allowance  has  been  made  for  the  fact 
that  at  the  time  Everett  delivered  his  oration  the 
scientific  world  was  still  in  the  pre-Darwinian  era, 
this  statement  is  highly  rhapsodical.  The  incessant 
strife  and  violence  of  ^'natural**  phenomena  were 
open  to  all  observers;  what  Darwin  did  was  to  bring 
the  elements  of  the  struggle  for  life  within  the 
terms  of  an  evolutionary  theory,  not  to  show  that 
nature  was  "dear.** 

"...  They   bring   up    remote    and    shrinking 


i 


112  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

talent  into  the  cheerful  field  of  competition.  ..." 
There  may,  indeed,  be  circumstances  in  which  com- 
petition is  **cheerfuV  but  they  must  be  extremely 
rare. 

"...  They  bestow  upon  all  who  deserve  it  or 
seek  it,  the  only  patronage  that  ever  struck  out  a 
spark  of  celestial  fire  ...  the  patronage  of  fair 
opportunity."  It  would  be  unfair  to  make  any 
point  of  the  presence  of  the  word  "or"  in  this  sen- 
tence. If  the  oration  had  been  delivered  at  the 
beginning  of  th-e  twentieth  instead  of  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  "or"  might  have 
been  put  in  by  intention;  it  is  only  bare  justice  to 
assume,  however,  that  what  Everett  said  was  "and." 
Even  then  the  sentence  is  painfully  rhapsodical. 
The  only  reasonable  interpretation  which  can  be 
put  upon  it  is  that  genius  gets  a  fairer  opportunity 
under  Democratic  than  it  does  under  monarchical, 
aristocratic  or  oligarchic  institutions. 

History  affords  no  evidence  in  support  of  such 
a  view.  Athens  gave  the  world  many  of  the  greatest 
intellects  of  all  time;  and  Athens,  as  Rousseau  said, 
"was  not  really  a  Democracy,  but  a  very  tyrannical 
aristocracy,  governed  by  scholars  and  orators." 
Rome  produced  its  greatest  poets,  orators,  historians 
and  statesmen  during  the  period  which  saw  the 
gradual  decay  of  the  Republic  and  the  rise  of  the 
Empire.     The  Democratic  element  which  existed 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  113 

in  many  of  the  early  Italian  Republics  was  apparent 
rather  than  real;  and  the  effective  power  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  great  nobles  to  whose  patronage  of 
the  arts  the  Renaissance  in  Italy  owed  whatever 
stimulus  opportunity  gave  to  the  genius  of  the 
time. 

No  period  of  French  history  has  been  more  fruit- 
ful of  intellectual  achievement  than  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries;  and  in  no  period  of  equal 
length  in  the  history  of  any  European  country  west 
of  the  Vistula  have  the  people  played  a  smaller 
part  in  Government. 

But  it  is  in  the  history  of  England  that  we  find 
the  clearest  proof  that  it  is  not  the  periods  of 
"popular"  Government  which  have  been  marked  by 
unusual  outbursts  of  genius.  In  Tudor  England  the 
monarchs  ruled  in  a  very  real  sense,  and  the  people 
were  ruled.  The  house  of  Tudor  reigned  for  less 
than  a  hundred  and  twenty  years.  This  period 
produced  Shakespeare,  Spenser,  Sir  Thomas  More, 
Surrey,  Marlowe,  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  Chap- 
man, Sidney,  Napier,  Cavendish,  Coke,  Drake, 
Howard  of  Effingham,  Hawkins,  Wolsey,  Cranmer, 
Francis  Bacon,  Frobisher  and  Raleigh. 

With  the  accession  of  Queen  Anne,  in  1702,  the 
control  of  Government  passed  from  the  crown  to 
the  nobles,  in  whose  hands  it  remained,  effectively, 
for  more  than  a  century  and  a  half.    It  is  true  that 


I 


1 14  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

the  Reform  Bills  of  1832  and  of   1867  extended 
the   political   franchise  to   a   large  number  of  the 
people,  but  it  was  certainly  not  until  after  the  pass- 
age of  the  Reform  Bill  of   1884  that  the  people 
were  able  t©  exert  an  influence  in  the  State  in  any 
way  comparable  with  that  exerted  by  the  aristoc- 
racy.     The   period   of   aristocratic   domination   in 
modern  England  extended  roughly  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  eighteenth  century  to  a  date  which  can- 
not be  placed  earlier  than  1884.     It  was  this  period 
of  aristocratic  domination  which  in  one  small  coun- 
try gave  to  statesmanship   Burke,   Chatham,   Pitt, 
Fox,   Walpole,    Carteret,   Harley,   Temple,    Clive, 
Hastings,    Bolingbroke,    Windham,    Peel,    Bright, 
Cobden,  Russell,  Palmerston,  Canning,  Disraeli,  and 
Gladstone;  which  gave  to  letters  Addison,   Swift, 
Steele,   Defoe,    Dickens,   Thackeray,   Scott,    Lamb, 
Hazlitt,   Burns,   Pope,  Keats,   Carlyle,   the  Marti- 
neaus,   the   Brownings,   the  Brontes,   Johnson,    De 
Quincey,  Southey,  Ruskin,  Coleridge,  Wordsworth, 
George  Eliot,  Grote,  Gibbon,  Macaulay,  Bagehot, 
Buckle  and  Byron;  which  gave  to  science,  scholar- 
ship and  philosophy  Bentham,  Hume,  Airy,  Jowett, 
Berkley,  Porson,  Arkwright,  Stephenson,  Mill,  Her- 
schell,    Darwin,    Huxley,    Wallace,    Hamilton    the 
philosopher,  Hamilton  the  mathematician,  Cayley, 
Adam  Smith,  Bentley,  Watt,  De  Morgan  and  Clerk 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  115 

Maxwell;  which  gave  to  art  Gainsborough,  Rey- 
nolds, Romney,  Raebum,  Turner,  Constable,  Flax- 
man,  Leech,  Wilkie,  Opie,  and  Cruikshank. 

The  above  list  could,  of  course,  be  greatly  ex- 
tended; but  it  is  long  enough  to  show  that  "popular 
institutions*'  are  not  necessary  to  the  production  of 
genius. 

I  turn  now  to  some  of  the  modern  rhapsodists. 
Writing  in  1908,  Mr.  John  T.  Dye,  in  his  *'Ideals 
of  Democracy,''  says:  *'When  the  welfare  of  all 
and  social  helpfulness  become  the  controlling  ideals 
of  our  political  life,  and  we  are  able  to  enforce 
existing  laws  and  punish  criminals,  we  will  be  able 
to  enact  legislation  that  is  not  in  the  interest  of 
the  anti-social  classes.  Democracy  .  .  .  trusts  the 
Power  that  causes  the  plant  growing  in  the  darkness 
to  turn  to  the  light,  and  the  vine  put  forth  its  ten- 
drils and  grasp  support  as  it  climbs,  that  gives  the 
maternal  instinct  to  animal  life,  and  endows  man 
with  reason  and  conscience  with  love  and  aspira- 
tion. ..." 

The  late  Senator  John  T.  Morgan,  of  Alabama, 
writes  as  follows,  in  his  introduction  to  an  edition 
of  De  Tocqueville,  published  in  1900:  "He  (De 
Tocqueville)  ,  found  that  the  American  people, 
through  their  chosen  representatives  who  were  in- 
structed by  their  wisdom  and  experience,  and  were 


1 1 6  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

supported  by  their  virtues — cultivated,  purified,  and 
ennobled  by  self-reliance  and  the  love  of  God — had 
matured  in  the  excellent  wisdom  of  their  counsels, 
a  new  plan  of  Government,  which  embraced  every 
security  for  their  liberties  and  equal  rights  and  priv- 
ileges to  all  in  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  .  .  .  We 
have  found  them  (American  municipal  Govern- 
ments) in  practice,  the  true  protectors  of  the  purity 
of  the  ballot." 

Senator  John  James  Ingalls,  also  writing  about 
De  Tocqueville,  in  1900,  said:  *'The  despotism  of 
public  opinion,  the  tyranny  of  majorities,  the  absence 
of  intellectual  freedom  which  seemed  to  him  to  de- 
grade administration  and  bring  statesmanship, 
learning,  and  literature  to  the  level  of  the  lowest, 
are  no  longer  considered.  The  violence  of  party 
spirit  has  been  mitigated,  and  the  judgment  of  the 
wise  is  not  subordinated  to  the  prejudices  of  the 
Ignorant.'* 

In  an  address  delivered  in  Boston  in  19 13  by 
Professor  Charles  Prospero  Fagnani,  occurred  the 
following  passage:  **You  cannot  separate  God  and 
Democracy  .  .  .  and  you  cannot  separate  Democ- 
racy from  God.  For,  if  we  believe  in  Democracy 
we  believe  in  God's  purpose,  God's  ideal,  and  that 
is  believing  in  God.  .  .  .  Humanity  has  never  had 
a  fair  chance  yet." 

In  the  discussion  which  followed  Professor  Fag- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  117 

nani's  address,  one  of  the  audience  asked  him,  "Are 
not  beings  created  equal?  Why,  then,  are  they  not 
born  equal  mentally?"  To  this  the  Professor  re- 
plied, *They  are,  practically.  .  .  ." 

The  most  muddle-headed  and  rhapsodical  refer- 
ence to  Democracy  which  has  fallen  under  my  eye 
in  recent  years  is  to  be  found  in  the  New  York 
Medical  Journal  of  September  22,  19 17.    The  issue 
contains  an  article  on  the  causes  of  gout;  and  it 
might  have  been  supposed  that  Democracy  could  be 
kept  out  of  a  discussion  of  the  toxic  properties  of 
uric  acid.     Not  at  all!     The  writer  of  the  article 
introduces  his  topic  by  saying,  **Uric  acid  as  the  last 
word   in  the   causation   of   gout  ...  is   tottenng 
upon  its  throne" ;  and  the  editorial  comment  on  the 
article,  taking  as  its  text  the  fact  that  causes  other 
than  uric  acid  appear  to  have  their  share  in  pro- 
ducing  gout,  declares  that  thus  **Democracy  is  ad- 
vancing in  medical  theory  as  well  as  in  political 

practice." 

From  this  kind  of  thing  it  is  but  a  step  to  the 
Jeffersonian  Microbocracy,  and  the  American  Fed- 
cration  of  Toxins. 

If  the  reader  will  give  a  moment's  consideration 
to  the  foregoing  quotations,  if  he  will  reflect  that 
they  are  not  the  product  of  a  children's  essay- 
contest  but  the  serious  statements  of  educated  men, 
if  he  will  remember  that  they  represent  the  kind 


1 1 8  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

of  thing  that  serious  people  have  been  saying  to 
the  country  for  a  hundred  years,  he  will  realize 
what  a  long  way  we  are  from  appreciating  the  real 
nature  of  Democracy's  problems. 


CHAPTER    IV 

THERE  is  no  reasonable  ground  for  hoping 
that  modern  Governments  will  be  able  to  find 
solutions  for  the  extremely  delicate  and  complex 
problems  which  they  now  face  in  the  domain  of 
internal  administration— and  for  which  people  are, 
with  ever-growing  vehemence,  demanding  solutions 
—unless  those  who  make  Governments  and  those 
who  dispense  Government  can  reach  an  agreement 
as  to  certain  fundamental  matters  which  have 
hitherto  attracted  a  very  small  share  of  the  public 

attention. 

The  first  and,  in  the  opinion  of  many  earnest 
students,  the  most  important,  is  one  which  must, 
from  its  very  nature,  take  precedence  of  all  others. 
This  question  is  whether  the  general  assumption 
that  the  problems  of  popular  Government  can  be 
solved  through  the  instrumentality  of  education  and 
other  environmental  influences  is  well  founded; 
whether  the  moral  and  intellectual  qualities  which 
determine  the  character  of  all  Government  are  not, 
in  fact,  dependent  upon  causes  which  are  but  slightly 
influenced  by  differences  in  environment  such  as  can 

119 


y 


120  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

be  produced  by  the  school,  the  home,  the  church, 
and  so  on. 

It  IS  obvious  that  unless  and  until  this  question  is 
settled  with  some  fair  approach  to  certainty,  no 
answer  worth  recording  can  be  made  to  any  impor- 
tant question  arising  out  of  the  form  and  function 
of  Government.  With  the  object  of  starting  a 
discussion  of  this  topic  I  sent  to  the  Journal  of 
Heredity  an  article  entitled  ^'Democracy  and  the 
Accepted  Facts  of  Heredity,''  which  was  printed  in 
the  issue  for  December,  1918.  I  reproduce  the  sub- 
stance of  it,  with  some  amplification. 

On  the  level  plain  of  routine,  where  most  of  us 
pass  our  lives,  intelligent  men  are  agreed  that  in 
material  affairs  human  progress  is  best  served  by 
expert  knowledge  and  firm  leadership,  held  by  the 
few  and  by  them  employed  to  direct  the  energies  of 
the  mass.  The  recognition  of  this  fact  is,  indeed, 
the  regulating  principle  of  commerce,  of  industry, 
and  of  agriculture.  In  the  field  of  conduct  the  same 
principle  is  accepted — the  rare  man  of  high  moral- 
ity as  the  guide  and  inspiration  of  the  common  run 
of  men.  The  priest  does  not  poll  his  flock  as  to 
the  sinfulness  of  murder,  nor  the  captain  his  crew 
as  to  the  vessel's  course,  nor  the  architect  his  work- 
men as  to  the  span  of  the  arch,  nor  the  farmer  his 
hands  as  to  the  rotation  of  his  crops,  nor  the  banker 
his  clerks  as  to  the  placing  of  loans. 


\ 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  121 

Yet  the  moment  we  enter  the  field  of  politics  we 
are  directed  to  reverse  the  whole  course  of  reason- 
ing which  has  been  our  counselor  in  the  familiar 
round  of  duty,  and  to  apply  to  the  most  compli- 
cated, the  most  technical,  the  most  pressing  prob- 
lem ever  presented  to  man's  genius — the  problem 
of  modern  Government — a  method  no  one  has  ever 
applied  to  his  simple  personal  affairs;  the  control 
of  the  expert  by  the  inexpert. 

Take  a  simple  case.  If  I,  a  student  of  Govern- 
ment, attempt  to  advise  two  axmen  as  to  the  fellmg 
of  a  tree,  the  humor  of  the  situation  strikes  them 
at  once.  But  if  they,  the  axmen,  differ  from  me, 
the  student  of  Government,  as  to  the  comparative 
merits  of  a  tax-levy  and  a  bond  issue,  of  an  appomt- 
ive  and  an  elective  judiciary,  of  specific  and  ad 
valorem  customs  duties,  no  one's  sense  of  humor 
intervenes  to  prevent  the  axmen  making  their  view 
prevail  at  the  next  election. 

The  assumption  in  the  former  instance  is,  of 
course,  that  their  judgment  is  better  than  mine;  in 
the  latter  that  mine  is  better  than  theirs.  But 
whereas,  in  the  former  case  iheir  rightness  and  not 
their  number  is  accepted  as  the  proper  determining 
cause  of  action,  in  the  latter  the  issue  is  held  to  be 
properly  decided  by  their  number  and  not  by  my 

rightness. 

A  discrimination  of  this  kind  can  be  explained 


122  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

only  by  the  co-existence  in  the  public  mind  of  two 
fundamental  conceptions:  one,  that  axmen  must  be 
presumed  to  have  had  training  and  experience  in  the 
felling  of  trees,  but  that  any  one  is  competent  to 
decide  matters  of  governmental  policy  without  hav- 
ing had  either  training  or  experience  in  the  business 
of  Government;  the  other,  that  Government  should 
express  the  mere  arbitrary  will  of  the  people,  alto- 
gether apart  from  any  consideration  of  whether  that 
will,  when  made  effective,  is  calculated  to  yield  com- 
petent or  incompetent  Government. 

So  far  as  the  United  States  is  concerned  the  ex- 
planation of  this  phenomenon  is  simple.  This  Gov- 
ernment was  founded  in  a  Revolution,  and  the  po- 
litical principles  it  established  were  the  battle-cry 
of  a  people  in  arms  to  achieve  their  liberty.  It  is 
not  unnatural,  therefore,  that  those  principles 
should  have  been  impressed  upon  the  spirit  of  suc- 
ceeding generations  rather  by  the  arts  of  rhetoric 
than  by  the  science  of  reasoning,  that  their  lodg- 
ment should  still  be  in  the  emotions  and  not  in  the 
intelligence  of  the  people.  From  these  circum- 
stances it  has  arisen  that  for  the  great  majority  of 
Americans  all  questions  relating  to  the  principles 
and  practice  of  their  Government  have  been  en- 
dowed, by  the  violence  which  attended  their  birth, 
with  a  sanctity  which  lends  to  all  criticism  of  them 
the  color  of  sacrilege. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  123 

The  situation  is  made  worse  by  the  fact  that  how- 
ever seriously  the  principles  and  practice  of  Amer- 
ican Government  may  have  become  estranged  from 
the  idea  of  Representative  Republicanism  which 
animated  the  fathers  of  the  nation,  it  is  usually 
sufficient,  in  face  of  the  general  ignorance  of  Con- 
stitutional  history,  to  state  that  anything  is  in  con- 
formlty  with  the  original  intention  of  those  great 
men,  to  secure  Instant  acceptance  of  the  claim. 

It  is  largely  due  to  the  constant  pressure  of  this 
obsession,  and  because  we  give  to  the  doctrine  of 
man's  **naturar*  rights  a  political  as  well  as  a  hu- 
mane  interpretation,  that  we  have  fallen  into  a 
rhapsodical  posture  toward  the  democratic  form  of 
government.  We  have,  in  fact,  come  to  regard  De- 
mocracy  as  a  magic  elixir  which,  if  we  take  enough 
of  it,  will  transmute  the  base  metal  of  human  frailty 
into  a  shining  amalgam  of  knowledge,  wisdom,  and 

unselfishness. 

Translated  Into  terms  of  political  action  this  view 
gives  us  a  quantitative  Instead  of  a  qualitative  foun- 
dation for  authority  in  the  State;  and  from  this, 
two  very  serious  consequences  ensue — one  that  we 
attach  more  importance  to  the  form  than  to  the  re- 
sults of  Government;  the  other,  that  when  we  can 
no  longer  blind  ourselves  to  the  unsatisfactory  na- 
ture of  the  results,  we  refuse  to  draw  the  logical 
conclusion,  and  even  to  reconsider  our  political  dog- 


124  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

mas.  We  do  not  cry,  **Give  us  less  of  numerical 
determinism  in  Government*';  we  cry,  "Give  us 
more  of  it." 

This  reaction  is  closely  similar  to  that  of  the  drug- 
fiend  who,  the  worse  his  symptoms  become,  cries 
ever  more  vehemently  for  a  larger  allowance  of  his 
deadly  potion. 

It  is  this  pathological  worship  of  mere  numbers 
which  has  inspired  all  the  efforts — the  Primary,  the 
direct  election  of  senators,  the  Initiative,  the  Refer- 
endum, and  the  Recall — to  cure  the  evils  of  mob  rule 
by  increasing  the  size  of  the  mob  and  by  extending 
its  powers.  It  is  this  strange  adoration  which  has 
almost  destroyed  the  principle  of  Representative  Re- 
publicanism on  which  the  institutions  of  the  United 
States  were  established. 

I  use  the  word  "mob"  to  describe  a  large  number 
of  persons,  having  no  understanding  of  the  func- 
tions of  Government  as  a  social  agency,  employing 
their  numbers  to  determine  matters  in  the  domain 
of  Government.  A  thousand  window-cleaners  are 
not  a  mob  when  they  are  occupied  in  cleaning  win- 
dows; a  thousand  drivers  of  garbage  carts  are  not 
a  mob  when  they  are  driving  their  carts;  but  the 
one  aggregate  as  well  as  the  other  is  a  mob  when  it 
votes  on  the  highly  technical  question  of  the  amend- 
ment of  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
or  when  it  registers  its  opinion  as  to  whether  the 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  125 

United  States  should  enter  or  keep   out  of  the 
League  of  Nations. 

Those  who  assume  the  responsibility  of  reconcil- 
ing the  facts  of  Democratic  control  with  its  theory 
adopt  an  expedient  which  places  the  whole  issue  be- 
yond  the  reach  of  reason.     They  lay  down  the  rule 
that  Democracy  must  not  be  judged  by  its  yester- 
day, or  by  its  to-day,  but  by  its  to-morrow;  and  that 
so  fast  as  to-morrows  become  yesterdays,  even  so 
fast  must  all  adverse  evidence  be  discredited  as 
worthless.     Just  below  the  ever-receding  horizon  of 
time  there  lies,  almost  in  sight  of  those  who  accept 
this  rule,  the  pleasant  land  where  education,  die- 
tetics,  and  a  pat  on  the  shoulder  shall  have  made 
the  majority  of  mankind  into  political  units  from 
which  there  can  be  built  up  a  Government  of  benevo- 
lence,  righteousness,  and  efficiency. 

My  strong  dissent  from  this  view  of  politics  rests 
mainly  upon  four  broad  grounds : 

I.  That  acquired  characteristics  are  not  inherit- 
able. ,  ,       J 

II.  That  within  the  field  of  man's  mental  and 
moral  traits  there  operate  immutable  laws  analo- 
gous to  those  which  are  almost  universally  accepted 
by  biologists  for  physical  inheritance. 

III.  That  assortive  mating  operates  unremit- 
tingly  to  depress  one  end  of  the  moral  and  intellec 
tual  scale  and  to  elevate  the  other. 


' 


126  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 


IV.  That  the  individual  and  not  the  mass  is,  and 
always  has  been,  the  main  source  of  human  advance- 
ment. 

Now,  these  statements  are  either  true  or  false. 
Of  the  first  three,  biologists  alone  are  competent 
to  express  an  authoritative  judgment:  in  my  mouth 
they  are  no  more  than  opinions.  Subject,  however, 
to  what  biologists  may  determine  to  be  their  value, 
it  is  clear  that  if  they  are  true  the  whole  theory  that 
efficiency  in  Government  arises  from  or  can  be  made 
to  depend  upon  its  Democratic  quality  falls  to  the 
ground. 

The  non-inheritance  of  acquired  traits  deals  a 
fatal  blow  to  the  common  belief  that  education  can 
give  the  offspring  of  educated  parents  a  better  nat- 
ural endowment  than  that  of  the  offspring  of  un- 
educated parents. 

Our  misconception  of  the  function  which  educa- 
tion performs  has,  indeed,  become  embedded  in  our 
language,  for  we  employ  the  word  **education*'  in 
the  sense  of  training  or  instruction,  whereas  its  fun- 
damental meaning  is  **bringing  out.**  This  distinc- 
tion goes  to  the  very  root  of  the  matter.  Education 
can  bring  out  that  which  is  in  a  man;  it  cannot 
bring  out  that  which  is  not  there.  It  can  impart 
facts  to  ignorance  (ad-ducate,  if  there  could  be  such 
a  word)  ;  but  it  cannot  make  a  dullard  bright,  or  a 
fool  sagacious.     It  is,  of  course,  highly  desirable 


ill 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  127 

that  each  generation  should  be,  as  it  were,  dipped 
by  the  schools  into  the  ocean  of  facts,  even  though, 
for  most  of  us,  the  point  of  saturation  is  very  quickly 

reached. 

Government,  however,  does  not  derive  its  effi- 
ciency from  a  mere  knowledge  of  facts,  but  from 
their  intelligent  interpretation;  and  the  reason  why 
education  cannot  have  a  cumulative  effect  upon  Gov- 
ernment is  that  intelligence  cannot  be  taught  and  that 
knowledge  cannot  be  inherited. 

Few  persons,  I  imagine,  will  refuse  their  assent 
to  the  statement  that  any  political  system,  however 
perfect  its  mechanism,  must  be  rendered  wholly  in- 
effective if  its  administration  is  entrusted  to  men  of 
low  intelligence.  But  it  is  a  matter  of  common  ob- 
servation that  intelligence  is  a  quality  native  to  some 
minds  and  foreign  to  others;  that  is  to  say  that  it 
is  born  in  the  brain,  and  cannot  be  imparted  to  it 
from  without.  Those  who  have  it  possess  some- 
thing which  cannot  be  withheld  or  bestowed  by  the 
authority  of  a  monarch  or  by  the  vote  of  an  as- 
sembly. 

I  pass  now  to  the  question  of  assortive  mating. 
Throughout  all  human  society  above  the  state  of 
savagery  the  general,  habit  is  for  like  to  mate  with 
like — the  rich  with  the  rich,  the  poor  with  the  poor, 
the  intelligent  with  the  intelligent,  the  dull  with  the 
dull,  the  successful  with  the  successful.     This  habit 


128  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

exerts  a  powerful  cumulative  influence  which  is  con- 
stantly widening  the  gulf  which  separates  superior 
strains  from  inferior  strains;  and  the  lapse  of  time 
is,  therefore,  making  talented  families  more  tal- 
ented, and  forcing  others  further  and  further  below 
the  line  of  mediocrity.  It  appears  then  that  man- 
kind is  not  breeding  toward  an  average,  but  toward 
two  extremes. 

I  pass  finally  to  what  history  teaches  us  of  the 
importance  of  greatness  in  the  individual.  The 
question  resolves  itself  actually  into  the  choice  be- 
tween a  qualitative  and  a  quantitative  theory  of 
causation  in  human  achievement. 

To  whatever  phase  of  human  development  we 
turn,  history  fails  to  furnish  a  single  instance  in 
which  an  accomplished  step  in  human  progress  can 
be  referred,  ultimately,  to  any  cause  other  than  the 
quality  of  greatness  in  the  individual.  It  is  this 
quality  which  has  given  the  world  all  that  has 
ennobled  man's  character,  elevated  his  culture,  and 
extended  his  mastery  over  the  material  elements  of 
life.  It  is  to  the  genius  of  a  few  hundred  individ- 
uals among  the  thousands  of  millions  who  have  lived 
that  we  owe  all  the  inspiration  of  religion,  of  philos- 
ophy, of  music,  of  art,  of  literature;  all  the  benefac- 
tions of  science,  of  discovery,  of  invention. 

The   foregoing  statements  produced,   as  I   had 
hoped  they  would,  a  good  deal  of  discussion.     I  may 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  129 

refer  particularly  to  four  articles  which  appeared  in 
the  Journal  of  Heredity.  These  were  written,  re- 
spectively, by  Professor  Edwin  G.  Conklin,  by  Pro- 
fessor O.  F.  Cook  and  Mr.  Robert  Carter  Cook, 
by  Mr.  Madison  Grant,  and  by  Mr.  Prescott  F. 
Hall.  The  first  and  second  are  by  men  whose  pro- 
fessional work  has  made  them  specially  familiar 
with  biology,  the  third  and  fourth  are  by  men  who, 
from  similar  causes,  are  specially  familiar  with  af- 
fairs. 

The  biologists  endorsed  the  greater  part  of  my 
biological  statements,  whilst  strongly  dissenting 
from  my  application  of  them;  and  the  men  of  af- 
fairs endorsed  the  greater  part  of  my  statements 
about  Government.  The  satisfaction  with  which  I 
contemplate  this  situation  may  be  measured  by  con- 
sidering the  position  I  would  have  been  in  if  the 
principal  support  for  my  views  on  Government  had 
come  from  the  biologists,  and  for  my  views  on 
biology  from  the  men  of  affairs;  though  I  do  not 
suggest,  of  course,  that  a  biologist  may  not  have 
studied  Government  to  good  purpose,  or  a  man  of 

affairs  biology. 

Before  taking  up  those  points  on  which  the  dis- 
cussion disclosed  marked  differences  of  opinion,  it 
is  advisable  to  refer  to  one  on  which  there  seemed 
to  be  substantial  agreement,  namely,  the  extremely 
unsatisfactory  state  of  American  Democracy  after 


1^ 


\> 


.    t 


130  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

nearly  a  century  and  a  half  of  free  operation  of  the 
American  institutions  of  Government,  in  circum- 
stances more  favorable  than  those  under  which  any 
popular  Government  has  ever  functioned. 

In  the  article  by  Professor  O.  F.  Cook  and  Mr. 
Robert  Carter  Cook  occur  the  following  pas- 
sages :— 

"Not  too  much  power  in  the  hands  of  the  peo- 
ple, but  too  little  of  active,  constructive  interest  in 
problems  of  general  welfare,  even  among  intelligent 
citizens,  is  the  most  serious  danger  in  popular  Gov- 
ernment. People  think  of  Government  much  as 
they  think  of  an  insurance  company.  They  pay 
their  tax  assessments  passively  and  assume  that  a 
mysterious  system  will  attend  properly  to  the  pub- 
lic work.  Our  theories  are  Democratic,  but  many 
of  our  habits  are  still  feudal  or  monarchic.  We 
are  far  enough  from  monarchy  to  think  of  the  Gov- 
ernment as  responsible  to  the  people,  yet  not  far 
enough  for  people  to  think  of  themselves  as  re- 
sponsible for  Government." 

"That  useful  talents  may  appear  in  *lower  levels 
of  society,'  as  Professor  Conklin  points  out,  may 
mean  that  our  system  fails  to  place  good  stocks  un- 
der favorable  conditions,  or  that  our  judgment  of 
conditions  is  at  fault.  The  need  is  to  give  special 
ability  or  usefulness  a  selective  value,  to  preserve 
and  increase  the  family  stock,  but  our  system  works 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  131 

generally  in  the  opposite  direction  of  using  up  and 
exterminating  talent  as  rapidly  as  possible.  Thus 
there  are  biological  problems  that  need  to  be  stud- 
ied from  the  standpoint  of  politics,  as  well  as  ques- 
tions of  Government  that  need  biological  answers." 

Mr.  Madison  Grant  says:  **In  every  branch  of 
human  activity,  except  Government,  we  demand  a 
certain  amount  of  expert  or  technical  knowledge, 
but  apparently  anybody  is  good  enough  to  repre- 
sent the  public  in  a  board  of  aldermen,  a  state  as- 
sembly, or  even  in  the  Federal  Congress.  There  is 
no  attempt  made  to  require  experience,  knowledge, 
or  even  a  very  high  degree  of  personal  character 
— and  least  of  all  does  it  seem  to  be  of  great  im- 
portance, even  for  those  who  fill  the  highest  posi- 
tions in  the  nation,  to  possess  long  traditions  of 
Americanism,  without  which  no  man  can  adequately 
represent  the  Republic. 

**It  is  pathetic  to  note  that  in  our  American  De- 
mocracy the  electorate  having  once  accepted  the  the- 
ory that  any  man  is  qualified  for  office  without  *dis- 
tinction  of  race,  creed,  or  color,*  we  proceed  to  limit 
and  check  the  power  of  our  chosen  representatives 
by  all  manner  of  regulations,  statutes,  and  consti- 
tutions. 

"In  America  the  melting  pot  is  an  absolute  fail- 
ure. Immigrant  races  retain  just  what  they  brought 
with  them,  and  some  are  good  and  some  are  bad. 


132  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

This  is  well-nigh  universally  admitted  in  private,  but 
in  public  it  is  most  unpopular  to  hesitate  to  bend  the 
knee  to  the  great  god,  Demos. 

"Our  vaunted  freedom  of  speech  and  of  press  in 
iknerica  probably  is  less  observed  than  anywhere 
else  among  civilized  men." 

Mr.  Prescott  F.  Hall  says:  "Fortunately,  the 
population  of  the  United  States  at  that  time  (the 
time  of  the  War  of  Independence)  consisted  of 
picked  specimens  of  the  Nordic  race,  selected  by 
the  perils  of  voyaging  hither  and  of  exploiting  a 
new  country.  These  people  had  sense  enough  to 
entrust  the  management  of  their  affairs  to  the  most 
capable  among  them ;  so  that,  for  some  sixty  or  sev- 
enty years  the  Government,  although  Democratic  in 
form,  was  aristocratic  in  fact.  At  the  present  time 
this  is  no  longer  true.  Respect  for  intelligence  and 
ability  have  so  far  disappeared  that  it  is  almost  im- 
possible for  a  strong  and  able  man  of  independent 
views  to  be  elected  to  high  office.  To  get  into  of- 
fice, a  man  must  now  play  the  demagogue. 

"The  result  is  a  lowering  both  of  ideals  and  of 
execution.  The  popular  opinion  of  the  masses  must 
be  consulted  at  every  step.  Amiel  says:  *The  stu- 
pidity of  the  Demos  is  equaled  only  by  its  presump- 
tion. It  is  an  adolescent  who  has  power  but  can- 
not attain  reason.  .  .  .  Democracy  rests  on  the 
legal  fiction  that  the  majority  has  not  only  power 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  133 

but  reason,  that  it  possesses  wisdom  as  well  as  legal 
rights.  .  .  .'The  masses  will  always  be  below  the 
average  .  .  .  and  Democracy  will  end  up  in  the  ab- 
surdity of  leaving  the  decision  of  the  most  impor- 
tant questions  to  those  most  incapable.  This  is  the 
penalty  for  its  abstract  principle  of  equality  .  .  . 
which  ignores  the  inequality  of  valor,  of  merit  of 
experience,  in  other  words,  of  individual  effort.'  " 
In  his  reply  to  my  article  (summarized  on  for- 
mer pages).  Professor  Conklin  referred  me  to  an 
article  from  his  pen  which  appeared  in  the  April, 
1 9 19,  issue  of  Scrihner*s  Magazine.  I  quote  from 
it  his  description  of  present-day  Democracy  in  this 

country : 

"Our  lack  of  specialization  is  reflected  in  our 
contempt  for  specialists  and  experts  of  every  sort. 
The  belief  is  widespread  that  one  man's  opinion  is 
as  good  as  another's  and  that  expert  knowledge  is 
merely  another  way  of  fooling  the  people.  We  en- 
trust education  to  those  who  can  find  no  other  occu- 
pation, apparently  with  the  idea  that  any  one  can 
teach.  We  leave  the  control  of  food,  fuel,  cloth- 
ing, and  other  necessities  of  life  to  speculators  and 
middlemen,  and  the  health,  happiness,  and  employ- 
ment of  the  people  to  Providence  or  to  selfish  ex- 
ploiters. In  a  Democracy  where  *every  citizen  is  a 
king'  we  assume  that  statesmanship  comes  by  na- 
ture ;  almost  every  citizen  thinks  that  he  could  solve 


134  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

complex  problems  of  Government  ranging  all  the 
way  from  international  relations  to  parochial  affairs 
better  than  those  who  have  devoted  years  of  study 
to  them.  We  elect  demagogues  and  grafters  to  po- 
litical office  so  frequently  that  the  very  name  *poli- 
tician'  has  come  to  be  a  reproach.  We  send  nar- 
row partisans  to  Congress,  and  by  stupid  adherence 
to  party  regularity  men  wholly  untrained  in  states- 
manship are  frequently  put  into  the  most  important 
public  places.  It  is  generally  assumed  that  appoint- 
ive positrons  will  go  to  men  who  have  been  success- 
ful in  winning  votes,  and  positions  requiring  great 
technical  knowledge  are  often  filled  by  political  fig- 
ureheads, with  the  suggestion  that  subordinates  can 
do  the  work.'* 

After  reading  the  foregoing  description  of  Amer- 
ican Democracy,  as  it  appeared  to  Professor  Conk- 
lin's  observation  in  April,  191 9,  it  was  not  without 
astonishment  that  I  read  his  judgment  of  American 
Democracy,  as  expressed,  also  in  April,  19 19,  in  the 
Journal  of  Heredity,  where  he  concludes  his  reply 
to  me  with  these  words: — 

**After  all  the  merits  of  any  system  of  Govern- 
ment should  be  measured  by  its  actual  results  on 
society  as  a  whole,  over  long  periods  of  time,  and 
measured  in  this  way  Democracy  has  no  cause  as  yet 
to  be  fearful  of  the  results." 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  135 

If  the  results  to  date  of  American  Democracy,  as 
Professor  Conklin  describes  them,  are  no  cause  for 
fear,  it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  upon  what  kind  of  re- 
sults a  just  apprehension  might  be  founded. 

It  was  when  my  critics,  my  supporters,  and  my- 
self proceeded  to  account  for  those  evils  in  Amer- 
ican political  life  which  we  united  in  deploring  that 
we  separated  into  two  camps,  one  affirming  that  the 
causes  lay  fundamentally  in  the  operation  of  bio- 
logical law,  the  other  that  they  did  not — the  nega- 
tive position  being  taken  by  the  biologists. 

The  real  issue,  when  stripped  of  all  dialectical 
trappings,  is  whether  good  Government  (however 
it  may  be  defined)  depends  ultimately  upon  good 
human  qualities  or  upon  good  political  machinery. 
If  it  depends  chiefly  upon  the  former,  all  discussions 
of  Government  must  be  founded  in'biology;  if  upon 
the  latter,  they  must  center  around  constitutional 
law  and  political  technique. 

My  own  view  is  that  since  Government  forms  are 
merely  the  instruments  through  which  men  admin- 
ister their  public  affairs,  the  essence  of  Government 
is  to  be  sought  not  in  the  shape  of  the  instrument, 
still  less  in  its  name,  but  in  the  character  of  those 
who  employ  it.       ' 

Viewed  from  this  standpoint  the  distinguishing 
mark  of  modern  speculations  on  Government  ap- 


fc 


136  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

pears  to  be  a  constant  effort  to  find  in  political  ma- 
chinery a  substitute  for  human  character,  and  a  per- 
sistent determination  to  attribute  all  failure  in  pop- 
ular Government  to  any  cause  rather  than  to  the 
widespread  distribution  of  stupidity  and  corruption 
in  man.  * 

It  is  a  most  curious  circumstance  that  Professor 
Conklin,  Professor  Cook,  and  Mr.  Robert  Carter 
Cook  should  describe  the  present  state  of  Democ- 
racy in  terms  which  imply  a  widespread  distribu- 
tion of  stupidity  and  corruption  in  man,  should  agree 
that  mental  and  moral  traits,  such  as  stupidity  and 
corruption,  are  chiefly  derived  from  heredity,  should 
agree  that  acquired  characteristics  such  as  may  re- 
sult from  secular  education  and  from  religious  train- 
ing, cannot  be  transmitted  through  heredity,  and 
should  also  agree  that  there  is  no  essential  connec- 
tion between  biological  law  and  the  amount  of  stu- 
pidity and  corruption  in  Democratic  Government. 

What  is  not  less  curious  is  that  none  of  the  dis- 
sentients from  my  hypothesis — that  in  a  Democracy 
the  character  of  the  Government  depends  chiefly 
upon  the  character  of  the  people,  and  that  the  char- 
acter of  the  people  is  determined  by  biological  laws 
— states,  in  his  reply  to  me,  by  what  other  causes, 
in  his  opinion,  the  quality  of  Government  is,  in  fact, 
determined.  Indeed,  so  far  as  these  gentlemen  do 
assign  causes   for  bad  Government,   and  they  say 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  137 

very  little  on  this  point,  they  assign  causes  which 
are  actually  of  a  biological  nature. 

For  instance,  Professor  Conklin  says:  "Many 
faults  of  democracies  are  not  so  much  results  of  the 
form  of  Government  as  of  the  condition  and  charac- 
ter of  the  people.*'  But  surely  character  is  a  bio- 
logical factor. 

Again:  **A  Democracy  no  less  than  an  autocracy 
is  a  Government  by  leaders,  but  in  the  former  case 
these  leaders  are  chosen  by  the  people  and  are  re- 
sponsible to  them  and  in  the  latter  they  are  not. 
.  .  ."  But  surely,  whether  the  leader  be  good  or 
bad,  whether  he  be  elected  by  the  people  or  ap- 
pointed  by  a  king,  the  qualities  of  his  leadership  are 
not  conferred  upon  him  by  his  appointment  or  elec- 
tion, but  are  derived  from  his  mental  and  moral 
characteristics;  and  those,  as  most  biologists,  in- 
cluding Professor  Conklin,  agree,  are  derived  chiefly 
from  the  operation  of  heredity;  which  brings  us  back 
again  to  biological  causation. 

Professor  Cook  and  Mr.  Robert  Carter  Cook 
complain  that  we  do  not  give  special  ability  and 
usefulness  a  selective  value,  and  that  our  tendency 
is  to  restrict  ourselves  further  and  further  toward 
mediocrity  and  inferiority.  But  mediocrity  and  in- 
feriority  are  admittedly  derived  chiefly  from  hered- 
it}';  and  the  fact  that  ability  and  usefulness  are  not 
given  a  selective  value  under  our  Democratic  sys- 


138  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 


tern  can  only  be  due  to  the  ignorance  and  stupidity 
of  the  mediocre  and  inferior  majority  which  exer- 
cises control  by  force  of  its  numbers. 

A  logical  consideration  of  these  truths  should,  it 
seems  to  me,  have  led  their  authors  to  a  conclusion 
closely  similar  to  that  which  I  stated  in  the  article 
upon  which  they  offer  their  comment,  namely,  that 
the  majority  of  people  being  mediocre  or  inferior, 
it  is  unreasonable  to  expect  that  majority  to  pro- 
vide a  government  which  will  not  be  mediocre  or 
inferior.  But  so  far  from  reaching  any  such  con- 
clusion, they  describe  my  inferences  as  being  reac- 
tionary and  archaic;  and,  having  themselves  stated 
that  we  are  exterminating  talent  as  rapidly  as  pos- 
sible, and  are  breeding  further  and  further  toward 
mediocrity  and  inferiority,  they  reprove  me  for  not 
"looking  forward  to  a  world  of  capable,  right- 
minded  people.  .  .  y 

Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  my  firm  hope,  though 
hardly  my  confident  expectation,  is  that  we  may 
some  day  see  a  world  in  which  capable  and  right- 
minded  people  shall  exercise  a  much  greater  power 
in  Government  than  they  now  do.  This  hope  is 
founded  on  the  opinion  that  the  two  extremes  of 
capacity  and  incapacity,  of  right-mindedness  and 
wrong-mindedness,  are,  through  the  operation  of  as- 
sortive  mating,  becoming  more  distinctly  separated 
from  each  other  in  the  social  scale,  and  that  the  more 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  139 

clearly  this  becomes  evident  the  greater  will  become 
the  possibility  that,  from  the  sheer  instinct  of  self- 
preservation,  the  Democratic  nations  will  be  driven 
to  give  special  ability  and  usefulness  a  survival  value 
in  their  political  systems. 

This  brings  me  to  the  discussion  of  the  only  purely 
biological  point  on  which  my  critics  and  myself  are 
not  in  agreement— the  effects  of  assortive  mating. 
I  was  careful  to  say,  when  introducing  this  sub- 
ject, that  it  was  a  matter  upon  which  biologists  alone 
were  competent  to  express  an  authoritative  opinion; 
but  as  Professor  Conklin  has  called  upon  me  to  pro- 
duce  the  evidence  upon  which  I  founded  my  tenta- 
tive view,  I  am  glad  to  furnish  it. 

My  statement  was  justified,  it  seemed  to  me,  by 
the  result  of  two  measurements  of  the  social  dis- 
tribution of  genius  and  talent  in  the  United  King- 
dom. The  first  was  made  by  Havelock  Ellis;  the 
second,  which  is  in  continuation  of  the  first,  by  Dr. 
Frederick  Adams  Woods.*  The  material  worked 
over  in  each  case  was  furnished  by  the  "Dictionary 
of  National  Biography,'*  and  by  the  successive  sup- 
plements  of  that  work. 

What  these  investigations  disclose  is  that  over  a 

♦  Dr.  Woods's  figures  have  not  been  published.  The  reader  will 
find  in  his  "Influence  of  Monarchs"  (Macmillan,  1915),  PP-.  l?5' 
303,  an  interesting  discussion  of  the  process  of  class-differentiation 
through  assoruve  mating,  property  accumulaUon,  and  heredity. 


140  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

period  of  several  centuries  there  has  occurred  a 
striking  and  progressive  decline  in  the  cultural  con- 
tribution from  the  "lower''  classes  in  the  United 
Kingdom,  and,  of  course,  a  corresponding  relative 
increase  in  the  contribution  from  the  **upper''  and 
''middle''  classes. 

It  appears  that,  from  the  earliest  times  to  the 
end  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  contribution  to 
eminent  achievement  made  by  the  sons  of  craftsmen, 
artisans,  and  unskilled  laborers  yielded  11.7  per 
cent  of  the  total  number  of  names  utilized  in  the 
inquiry;  that  the  representatives  of  that  class  who 
were  born  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury yielded  7.2  per  cent  of  the  names;  and  that 
those  born  during  the  second  quarter  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  yielded  only  4.2  per  cent.  These  fig- 
ures are  of  great  interest  and  importance  when  con- 
sidered in  relation  to  the  social  and  political  history 
of  England  during  the  nineteenth  century. 

Everybody  knows  that  in  England  the  nineteenth 
century  witnessed  a  rapid  and  all-pervading  democ- 
ratization of  social  and  political  conditions.  It  was 
during  that  century  that  the  English  parliamentary 
system  became,  for  the  first  time  in  the  six  hundred 
years  of  its  existence,  an  institution  representative 
of  the  great  mass  of  the  people;  that  schooling  was 
made  available  for  all;  that  in  industry,  in  politics, 
in  society,  the  gates  of  opportunity  were  opened  wide 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  141 

for  any  person,  of  whatever  parentage,  who  could 
make  any  contribution  in  any  field  of  achievement; 
that  peers  became  business  men  and  business  men 
peers;  that  any  scientist,  any  scholar,  any  painter, 
sculptor,  musician,  poet,  novelist,  actor,  dramatist, 
engineer,  shipbuilder,  architect,  surgeon,  physician, 
lawyer,  merchant,  or  banker,  whose  talents  had  made 
him  prominent  In  his  calling,  could  entertain  a  rea- 
sonable hope  of  finding  wealth  in  the  favor  of  the 
public,  and  a  title  of  nobility  in  the  appreciation  of 
the  political  leaders. 

In  England  in  the  nineteenth  century,  then,  there 
were  to  be  observed,  in  a  measure  never  before  at- 
tained in  any  age  in  any  country,  the  conditions  which 
give  every  man  a  chance,  according  to  the  qualities 
of  his  mind  and  temperament.  If  social  opportu- 
nity was  less  free  than  in  the  United  States,  political 
opportunity  was  very  much  greater.  The  proof  of 
this  is  accessible  to  any  one  who  cares  to  compare 
the  number  of  occupations  represented  in  the  House 
of  Commons  with  the  number  represented  in  the 
House  of  Representatives. 

With  every  circumstance  of  life  growing  con- 
stantly more  favorable  to  the  self-assertion  of  genius 
and  talent  in  the  "lower"  classes  In  England,  how 
was  it  that  the  contributions  to  eminent  achieve- 
ment from  that  group  fell  from  an  average  of  1 1.7 
per  cent  of  the  total  to  a  proportion  of  4.2  per  cent? 


142  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

It  seems  to  me  that  as  the  vast  improvement  in 
environmental  conditions  had  not  only  failed  to  pro- 
duce an  increase  in  high  achievement  by  those  whom 
this  improvement  had  done  most  to  serve,  but  had, 
on  the  contrary,  taken  place  pari  passu  with  a  very 
serious  decline  in  achievement,  the  cause  must  be 
sought  in  an  influence  powerful  enough  to  offset 
whatever  beneficent  effects  improved  environment 
might  actually  exert  upon  a  stationary  class  during 
a  single  generation. 

This  influence  I  deem  to  have  been  that  of  as- 
sortive  mating.  Its  operation  appears  to  have  been 
of  a  dual  character.  On  the  one  hand,  the  effect 
in  heredity  of  intelligence  mating  with  intelligence, 
of  stupidity  with  stupidity,  of  success  with  success 
— to  put  the  matter  roughly — has  been  to  perpetu- 
ate and  to  increase  these  traits  in  the  respective 
groups.  On  the  other  hand,  the  practical  social 
consequences  of  these  effects  being  produced  under 
conditions  of  an  ever-broadening  democratization  of 
social  life  has  been  that  the  more  intelligent  and 
successful  elements  in  the  "lower"  classes  have  been 
constantly  rising  out  of  their  class  into  one  socially 
above  it.  This  movement  must  have  the  conse- 
quence of  draining  the  "lower'*  classes  of  talent  and 
genius,  and,  through  a  process  of  social  migration, 
of  increasing  the  genius  and  talent  of  each  succeed- 
ing upper  layer  in  the  social  series. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  143 

Now,  if  assortive  mating  really  occurs  as  an  in- 
evitable product  of  social  propinquity — and  this  can 
hardly  be  a  matter  of  dispute — and  if  democratic 
opportunity  does  actually  enable  a  family  to  move 
upwards  in  the  social  scale,  those  who  refuse  to  ac- 
cept the  clear  inference  to  be  drawn  from  these 
facts  are  placed  in  a  curious  dilemma. 

If  they  admit  the  existence  of  assortive  mating, 
as  an  ordinary  everyday  occurrence,  they  must,  it 
seems  to  me,  either  deny  the  part  played  by  hered- 
ity in  determining  the  character  of  offspring,  or  re- 
nounce the  view  that  democratic  conditions  have 
any  tendency  to  provide  rewards  for  intelligence  and 
penalties  for  stupidity.  If  such  rewards  and  penal- 
ties are  in  fact  apportioned,  there  must  of  necessity 
exist  a  constant  upward  and  downward  genetic  pres- 
sure tending  to  produce  an  increasing  difference  be- 
tween the  two  ends  of  the  social  spectrum.  If  such 
rewards  and  penalties  are  not  among  the  conse- 
quences which  flow  from  the  application  of  demo- 
cratic principles  to  the  structure  of  society,  then, 
so  far  from  Democracy  presenting  to  every  man  a 
better  chance  in  life,  according  to  the  better  quality 
of  his  actions,  it  must  have  the  effect  of  placing  a 
premium  on  inefliciency  and  a  handicap  on  compe- 
tency. 

Thus  far,  this  discussion  of  the  human  equation 
in  politics  has  tended  to.  show  that  the  ultimate 


144  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

factors  which  determine  the  character  of  Govern- 
ment are  to  be  sought  in  the  operation  of  the  law 
of  gametic  transmission  of  characteristics,  and  not 
in  the  possible  effects  of  social  organization. 

As  the  theory  of  environmental  determinism  is 
unquestionably  entertained  by  the  overwhelming  ma- 
jority of  civilized  adults,  and  since,  in  consequence, 
it  is  to  this  theory  that  most  of  our  social  and  po- 
litical  institutions  are  adjusted,  it  is  necessary  to  ex- 
amine  it  with  some  care. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  hypothesis  that  heredity  plays  a  much 
more  important  part  than  environment  in  de- 
termining the  mental  and  moral  qualities  of  the  in- 
dividual is  violently  repugnant  to  the  emotions  by 
which  the  opinions  of  so  large  a  proportion  of  hu- 
manity are  affected.  It  is  ^^naturaP'  that  most  people 
should  offer  firm  and  indignant  resistance  to  a  the- 
ory which  relegates  to  comparative  unimportance 
all  the  influences  actually  at  their  immediate  dis- 
posal— those  of  the  home,  of  the  church,  and  of  the 
school — and  which  places  their  temporal  hopes  and 
ambitions  at  the  mercy  of  pre-natal  forces  over 
which  they  have  no  control.  That  they  could,  in 
fact,  exert  such  control,  through  a  science  of  eu- 
genics, does  not  affect  the  validity  of  this  statement, 
for  there  is  no  popular  understanding  of  the  pos- 
sibilities of  eugenics. 

The  issue  as  it  .appears  to  almost  every  one  who 
considers  it  takes  a  simple  form:  Can  the  affection, 
the  care,  the  guidance,  the  education,  the  training 
given  to  a  human  being  determine  the  character, 
the  ability,  and  the  action  of  that  human  being? 

145 


146  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

That  the  overwhelming  majority  of  people  would 
answer  this  question  in  the  affirmative,  and  that  this 
almost  universal  affirmative  has  had  the  most  pro- 
found effect  upon  our  social  and  political  institu- 
tions, there  can  be  no  doubt. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  the  question  has  been  an- 
swered definitely  even  by  those  who  have  made  a 
special  study  of  it;  ^ut  so  far  as  it  has  been  the  sub- 
ject of  scientific  investigation  the  facts  appear  to 
show  that  the  popular  estimate  of  the  influence  of 
environment  is  grossly  exaggerated;  that  heredity 
does,  in  fact,  exert  the  dominating  influence.  Now, 
since  government  is  set  up  by  men,  since  it  is  ap- 
plied by  men,  since  it  is  to  men  that  it  is  applied, 
the  question  of  whether  men  are  what  they  are  when 
they  enter  the  world,  or  are  what  we  make  them 
after  they  have  entered  it  has  an  importance  greater 
than  that  of  any  other  issue  in  the  domain  of  Gov- 
ernment, because  it  is  from  the  settlement  of  this 
issue  that  all  other  issues  must  take  their  character. 

I  propose  to  examine  this  issue — not  as  a  biolo- 
gist, or  as  a  sociologist,  or  as  a  psychologist,  for  I 
am  none  of  these — but  as  a  student  of  Government, 
who  feels  that  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  the  spe- 
cialists in  these  three  fields  to  thrash  out  this  issue, 
so  that  there  may  be  a  fixed  point  from  which  we 
may  take  our  departure  upon  the  urgent  task  of 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  147 

adjusting  Government  to  the  needs  of  our  day  and 
generation. 

For  the  facts  used  in  the  following  examination 
I  am,  of  course,  indebted  to  others,  whose  work  I 
have  freely  quoted,  and  to  whom  I  make  my  ac- 
knowledgments whenever  I  refer  to  the  results  of 
their  researches.  What  I  have  attempted  to  do  is 
to  define  the  heredity-environment  issue,  and  to  pre- 
sent, in  untechnical  language  so  far  as  possible,  the 
present  status  of  fact  and  of  opinion  on  one  side 
and  on  the  other. 

That  environment  plays  some  part  in  the  deter- 
mination of  the  individual  human  character  and, 
therefore,  of  individual  conduct  is,  of  course,  admit- 
ted even  by  the  most  convinced  hereditarians.  In- 
deed, it  would  be  wholly  unreasonable  to  deny  to  ^ 
environment  an  influence  which  can,  under  an  ex-  J 
treme  supposition  of  circumstance,  be  shown  to  be 
absojutely  determinative  as  against  any  other  influ- 
ence whatever. 

If,  for  instance,  the  man  who  wrote  "Hamlet" 
had,  within  a  month  of  his  birth,  been  shipwrecked 
upon  a  remote  island  and  had  passed  the  rest  of  his 
life  completely  cut  off  from  all  communication  with 
the  outside  world,  he  could  never  have  written  that 
immortal  tragedy.  So  far  as  the  writing  of  **Ham- 
let"  is  concerned,  it  is  clear  that  the  genius  which 


^ 


148  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

made  possible  the  authorship  of  that  play  would 
have  availed  nothing  whatever  toward  bringing  the 
play  into  existence,  if  the  circumstances  I  have  sug- 
gested had  interposed  their  influence  in  the  way  I 
have  described.  As  addressed  to  this  point,  the 
actual  writing  of  **Hamlet,''  it  is  obvious  that  in 
my  supposititious  case  environment  would  have  rep- 
resented a  determinative  influence  equal  to  one  hun- 
dred^ per  cent. 

If  we  reverse  the  situation  and  assume  that  an 
idiot  member  of  some  savage  African  tribe  is  taken, 
shortly  after  birth,  to  the  intellectual  center  of  the 
world,  and  is  brought  in  contact  with  great  men, 
with  great  events,  with  great  books,  he  could  not 
write  **Hamlet.'*  In  such  circumstances  the  pre- 
natal endowment  of  the  man  would  represent  one 
hundred  per  cent  of  the  determining  influence,  and 
the  influence  of  environment  absolutely  nothing. 

When,  therefore,  we  are  enquiring  into  the  ques- 
tion of  the  relative  strength  of  heredity  and  of  en- 
vironment in  the  determination  of  human  qualities 
it  is,  of  course,  understood  that  each  has  an  influ- 
ence, and  that  the  force  of  heredity  will  be  to  some 
extent  affected  by  environment  and  that  of  environ- 
ment by  heredity.  The  real  matter  at  issue  is 
which  of  these  two  influences  is  dominant,  or,  to  put 
it  in  another  form,  if  a  man  has  good  heredity  and 
is  subjected  to  poor  environmental  influences  will 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  149 

he  do  better  or  worse  in  life  than  a  man  with  poor 
heredity  and  good  environmental  influences? 

These  questions  present  the  following  problems, 
which  I  define  in  the  rough  form  in  which  they  pre- 
sent themselves  to  the  lay  mind: 

If  the  environmental  influences  are  dominant  in 
producing  mental  and  moral  differences  between  one  ' 
man  and  another,  how  is  it  that  knaves  and  fools  are 
found  among  those  whose  environment  has  bee^n 
of  the  best,  and  men  of  high  character  and  ability 
among  those  whose  environment  has  been  of  the 
worst  ? 

If  the  influence  of  heredity  is  dominant  in  pro- 
ducing the  mental  and  moral  differences  between  one 
man  and  another,  how  is  it  that  fools  and  knaves 
are  born  of  wise  and  good  parents,  and  wise  men 
and  good  men  of  parents  who  are  knaves  and  fools? 

To  whatever  extent  environmental  influences  do 
affect  the  mental  and  moral  differences  between  one 
man  and  another,  are  these  differences,  as  thus  af- 
fected, transmissible  to  the  offspring? 

An  excellent  summary  of  the  scientific  problems 
upon  the  solution  of  which  the  answers  to  these  ques- 
tions depend  is  given  in  the  first  three  chapters  of 
**Applied  Eugenics'*  by  Paul  Popenoe  and  Roswell  / 
Hill  Johnson  (The  Macmillan  Company,  1920)./ 
From  this  work  I  take  the  following  brief  statement 
of  the  broad  conclusions  reached  by  the  authors  on 


I 


150  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

the  comparative  influence  of  Nature  (the  hereditary 
influence)  and  Nurture  (the  environmental  influ- 
ence). 

"If  success  in  life — the  kind  of  success  that  is  due 
to  great  mental  and  moral  superiority — is  due  to  the 
opportunities  a  man  has,  then  it  ought  to  be  pretty 
evenly  distributed  among  all  persons  who  have  had 
favorable  opportunities,  provided  a  large  enough 
number  of  persons  be  taken  to  allow  the  laws  of 
probability  full  play.  England  affords  a  good  field 
to  investigate  this  point,  because  Oxford  and  Cam- 
bridge turn  out  most  of  the  eminent  men  of  the 
country,  or  at  least  have  done  so  until  recently.  If 
nothing  more  is  necessary  to  insure  a  youth's  suc- 
cess than  to  give  him  a  first  class  education  and  the 
chance  to  associate  with  superior  people,  then  the 
prizes  of  life  ought  to  be  pretty  evenly  distributed 
among  the  graduates  of  the  two  universities,  during 
a  period  of  a  century  or  two. 

"This  is  not  the  case.  When  we  look  at  the  his- 
tory of  England,  as  Galton  did  nearly  half  a  cen- 
tury ago,  we  find  success  in  life  to  an  unexpected  de- 
gree a  family  affair.  The  distinguished  father  is 
likely  to  have  a  distinguished  son,  while  the  son  of 
two  ^nobodies'  has  a  very  small  chance  of  being  dis- 
tinguished. To  cite  one  concrete  case,  Galton  found 
that  the  son  of  a  distinguished  judge  had  about  one 
chance  in  four  of  becoming  himself  distinguished, 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  151 

while  the  son  of  a  man  picked  out  at  random  from 
the  population  had  about  one  chance  in  4)000  of  be- 
coming similarly  distinguished.*' 

If  the  English  figures  are  advanced  as  proving 
conclusively  that  heredity  is  a  much  greater  influ- 
ence than  environment,  the  objection  may  be  raised 
that  in  England  society  is  so  organized  that  children 
born  in  certain  social  classes  and  of  certain  **his- 
toric"  families  are  afforded  infinitely  greater  oppor- 
tunities in  life  than  fall  to  the  lot  of  the  average 
child,  and  that  success  is  due  more  to  these  superior 
opportunities  than  it  is  to  the  superior  qualities  of 
the  individual  born  into  the  select  class.  Popenoe 
and  Johnson  meet  this  objection  as  follows: — 

^Transfer  the  enquiry  to  America,  and  it  becomes 
even  more  conclusive,  for  this  is  supposed  to  be  the 
country  of  equal  opportunities,  where  it  is  a  popular 
tradition  that  every  boy  has  a  chance  to  become 
president.  Success  may  be  in  some  degree  a  fam- 
ily  affair  in  caste-ridden  England;  is  it  possible  that 
the  past  history  of  the  United  States  should  show 
the  same  state  of  affairs? 

"Galton  found  that  about  half  of  the  great  men 
of  England  had  distinguished  close  relatives.  If  the 
great  men  of  America  have  fewer  distinguished  close 
relatives,  environment  will  be  able  to  make  out  a 
plausible  case:  it  will  be  evident  that  in  this  conti- 
nent  of  boundless  opportunities  the  boy  with  ambi- 


.^^^^ffii**  .'*?S*-p*'.r-.^ 


w 


I      * 


15a  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

tion  and  energy  gets  to  the  top,  and  that  this  am- 
bition and  energy  do  not  depend  on  the  kind  of  fam* 
ily  he  comes  from. 

"Frederick  Adams  Woods  has  made  precisely 
this  investigation.  ('Heredity  and  the  Hall  of 
y  Fame.'  Popular  Science  Monthly,  May,  19 13.) 
The  first  step  was  to  find  out  how  many  eminent  men 
there  are  in  American  history.  Biographical  dic- 
tionaries list  about  3,500,  and  this  number  provides 
a  sufficiently  unbiased  standard  from  which  to  work. 
Now,  Dr.  Woods  says,  if  we  suppose  the  average 
person  to  have  as  many  as  twenty  close  relatives — 
as  near  as  an  uncle  or  a  grandson — then  computa- 
tion shows  that  only  one  person  in  500  in  the  United 
States  has  a  chance  to  be  a  near  relative  of  one  of 
the  3,500  eminent  men — provided  it  is  purely  a  mat- 
ter of  chance.  As  a  fact,  the  3,500  eminent  men 
listed  by  the  biographical  dictionaries  are  related  to 
each  other  not  as  one  in  500  but  as  one  in  five.  If 
the  more  celebrated  men  alone  be  considered,  it  is 
found  that  the  percentage  increases  so  that  about 
one  in  three  of  them  has  a  close  relative  who  is  also 
'  distinguished.  This  ratio  increases  to  more  than 
one  in  two  when  the  families  of  the  forty-six  Ameri- 
cans in  the  Hall  of  Fame  are  made  the  basis  of 
study.  If  all  the  eminent  relations  of  those  in  the 
Hall  of  Fame  are  counted,  they  average  more  than 
one  apiece.     Therefore,  they  are  from  five  hundred 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  153 

to  a  thousand  times  as  much  related  to  distinguished 
people  as  the  ordinary  mortal  is. 

"To  look  at  it  from  another  point  of  view,  some- 
thing like  I  per  cent  of  the  population  of  the  country 
is  as  likely  to  produce  a  man  of  genius  as  is  all  the     f 
rest  of  the  population  put  together, — the  other  99 
per  cent." 

To  the  foregoing  I  may  add  what  appears  to  be 
a  significant  illustration  of  the  comparative  insuffi- 
ciency of  environmental  influence  to  account  for  the 
great  differences  in  achievement  between  one  man 
and  another.  In  terms  of  environment,  the  oppor- 
tunity to  become  a  great  physicist  was  open  to  every 
one  of  the  thousands  of  university  students  who  were 
the  contemporaries  of  Lord  Kelvin;  the  opportu- 
nity to  become  a  great  musician  has  been  open  to  all 
the  pupils  in  all  the  conservatories  of  music  which 
have  flourished  since  Johann  Sebastian  Bach  was  a 
choir-boy  at  Liineburg;  the  opportunity  to  become 
a  multimillionaire  has  been  open  to  every  clerk  who 
has  wielded  a  pen  since  John  D.  Rockefeller  was  a 
bookkeeper  in  a  Cleveland  store;  the  opportunity  to  ' 
become  a  great  merchant  has  been  open  to  every 
boy  who  has  attended  an  American  public  school 
since  the  time  when  John  Wanamaker,  at  fourteen 
years  of  age,  was  an  errand  boy  in  a  Philadelphia 
book  store. 

The  heredity-environment  issue  can  only  be  set- 


154  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

tied  by  statistical  methods,  since  the  method  of  ex- 
perimental breeding  is  not  available.  If  we  could 
get  together  records  showing  the  mental  and  moral 
qualities,  the  environmental  influences,  and  the  men- 
tal and  moral  characteristics  of  the  ancestry  of  a 
large  number  of  people  we  should  have  before  us 
the  material  upon  which  an  actual  mathematical  de- 
termination of  the  respective  influences  of  heredity 
and  environment  could  be  based.  But  an  inquiry  of 
this  kind  presents  very  serious  difficulties.  It  is,  of 
course,  a  comparatively  easy  undertaking  to  col- 
lect data  for  a  single  generation,  because  we  can 
find  thousands  of  persons  with  parents  still  living, 
and  in  regard  to  whom  we  could  secure  accounts  of 
the  environmental  influences  and  of  the  mental  and 
moral  characteristics  of  the  parents  as  well  as  of 
themselves.  But  since  qualities  are  derived  in  part 
from  the  parental  germ-plasm,  in  part  from  the 
grandparental,  in  part  from  the  great-grandparental, 
and  so  on,  we  cannot  establish  a  series  of  correla- 
tions between  the  qualities  of  a  living  person  and 
those  of  his  ancestry  unless  we  have  character-rec- 
ords of  at  least  three  generations,  that  is  to  say,  of 
the  two  parents,  of  the  four  grandparents,  and  of 
the  eight  great-grandparents. 

Now  there  are  few  men  or  women  who  could  tell 
you  even  the  maiden  names  of  both  of  their  grand- 
mothers, and  the  number  of  people  who  could  tell 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  155 

you  the  maiden  names  of  their  four  great-grand- 
mothers is  so  small  that  it  could  not  be  made  vis- 
ible on  a  scale  representing  the  population  of  even 
a  small  town.  Yet  it  is  from  these  four  women  j/ 
that  half  the  hereditary  influence  transmitted  from  ' 
the  third  generation  has  been  derived.  In  regard 
to  the  vast  majority  of  people,  half  of  the  third- 
generation  influence  is,  therefore,  entirely  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  investigator.  This,  however,  is  only 
one  phase  of  the  problem.  If  we  go  back  only  as 
far  as  the  grandparents  of  the  present  adult  popu- 
lation of  the  United  States — that  is  to  say,  roughly, 
to  a  group  of  men  and  women  born  between  1825 
and  1850 — and  if  we  assume  that  each  of  these 
adults  knows  the  maiden  name  of  each  of  his  grand- 
mothers, we  would  then  have  six  people  (two  par- 
ents and  four  grandparents)  whose  characters,  if 
we  knew  them,  would  afford  the  material  for  meas- 
uring the  hereditary  influence  exerted  by  two  gen- 
erations of  forebears  upon  the  character  of  a  grand- 
child. 

But  in  regard  to  the  four  grandparents,  what 
chance  is  there  that  any  record  of  their  characters 
has  been  preserved?  If  the  child  is  an  Adams,  or 
a  Lowell,  or  a  Winlhrop,  or  a  Lee,  or  a  Cabot,  or 
a  Livingston,  or  an  Appleton,  you  will  find  good 
material  about  part  of  the  ancestry  in  the  biograph- 
ical dictionaries,  in  the  histories,  in  encyclopedias, 


li 


i  '' 


If  1 1 


n 


156  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

and  in  memoirs.  The  total  amount  of  material 
about  all  persons  bearing  one  of  these  names  would, 
however,  be  small  in  relation  to  the  total  number 
of  individuals,  even  in  regard  to  selected  families. 

There  was  one  way  out  of  the  difficulties  pre- 
sented above,  that  was  to  find  a  group  of  people 
now  living  in  regard  to  which  there  was  available  a 
long  record  of  mating,  and  a  voluminous  record  of 
character.  There  is  only  one  such  group,  the  royal 
families  of  Europe;  and  in  relation  to  this  group 
the  questions  under  discussion  were  investigated  with 
great  care,  and  on  a  scientific  method,  by  Dr.  Fred- 
erick Adams  Woods,  Lecturer  in  Biology  at  the 
Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology.  The  results 
were  published  in  1906  in  a  volume  entitled  **Men- 
tal  and  Moral  Heredity  in  Royalty."  I  have  fol- 
lowed very  closely  for  the  past  fourteen  years  the 
comment  on  Dr.  Woods's  book,  and  I  have  seen 
nothing  which  can  be  regarded  as  a  successful  as- 
sault upon  any  of  his  major  positions,  and  much 
from  distinguished  biological  authorities  in  support 
of  the  soundness  of  his  general  conclusions. 

These  conclusions  I  proceed  to  summarize,  but 
I  must  refer  the  reader  to  the  book  itself  for  an 
account  of  the  investigation  from  which  they  are 
derived. 

Dr.  Woods  thus  explains  the  nature  of  his  inves- 
tigation:— *This  inquiry  into  the  characteristics  of 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  157 

royalty  is  an  attempt  to  solve  several  interesting  and 
important  questions.  First,  by  including  all  mod- 
ern royal  families,  it  tries  to  give  a  fair  estimate 
of  the  mental  and  moral  status  of  these  privileged 
persons  as  compared  to  the  world  in  general.  Sec- 
ond, it  seeks  to  find  the  influences  on  the  individ- 
ual and  on  the  breed  of  that  environment  of  rank 
and  power  in  which  these  specially  elect  have  lived 
and  moved.  Third,  by  taking  a  great  group  of 
interrelated  human  beings  with  known  pedigrees  and 
characteristics,  it  seeks  to  throw  a  little  light,  in  the 
nature  of  facts,  on  the  old  enigma — Which  is  the 
more  important,  environment  or  heredity,  or  do 
both  together  somewhat  fail  to  explain  all  the  phe- 
nomena, and  must  we  postulate  a  third  ultranatural 
cause,  working  aside  from  biological  laws,  in  order 
to  account  for  all  the  varying  facts  of  personal  his- 
tory and  character? 

**It  is  evident  that  each  human  being  has  certain 
definite  mental,  and  moral,  and  physical  character- 
istics, and  that  these  are  due  to  not  more  than  three 
causes,  heredity,  environment,  and  free-will.  The 
first  two  are  generally  considered  to  play  an  Impor- 
tant part,  and  the  third  is  far  from  being  ignored 
by  some.  It  is  also  very  evident  that  there  is  but 
one  hundred  per  cent  of  cause  for  human  character, 
and  whatever  in  our  natures  is  due  to  one  of  these 
causes  takes  that  much  from  the  others.     It  is  the 


158  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

chief  aim  of  these  pages,  by  the  use  of  a  scientific 
method,  to  get  an  insight,  rough  though  it  may  be, 
into  the  proportionate  influence  played  by  these 
three  factors  in  the  make-up  of  mental  and  moral 
life." 

The  investigation  is  based  upon  the  examination 
of  the  lineage  and  character  of  3,312  persons,  all 
of  blood  relationship  to  royalty,  and  as  every  per- 
son answering  to  such  a  description,  about  whom 
anything  could  be  found  in  the  historical  record,  has 
been  included,  there  has  been  no  selection  of  special 
individuals  for  the  purpose  of  illustrating  any  pre- 
conceived theory.  Of  the  total  number  of  persons 
It  was  found  that  there  were  six  hundred  and  seventy- 
one  about  whom  sufficient  material  was  available  to 
allow  them  to  be  graded  in  a  category  for  intellect 
and  in  a  category  for  moral  qualities.  In  each  cate- 
gory Dr.  Woods  employed  ten  grades,  grade  one 
being  the  lowest. 

Of  Dr.  Woods's  results  I  am  concerned  here  only 
with  those  which  relate  to  the  comparative  impor- 
tance of  heredity  and  environment  in  the  determina- 
tion of  human  character,  though  other  matters  of 
great  importance  emerged  from  his  inquiry. 

According  to  Galton's  Law  of  Ancestral  Hered- 
ity, applied  to  physical  traits,  such  as  color,  stature, 
etc.,  the  resemblance  between  parent  and  offspring 
is  assigned  a  theoretic  value  of  R  —  .3000;  Woods's 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  159 

figures  for  mental  qualities  gave  him  a  coefficient  of 
correlation  between  parent  and  child  of  .3007,  and 
for  moral  qualities  of  .2983.  Galton's  theory  calls 
for  a  correlation  between  offspring  and  grandpar- 
ent expressed  by  the  coefficient  R  =  .150;  Woods's 
figures  for  grandparents  gave  him  a  coefficient  of 
R  =  .161  for  mental  qualities,  and  of  R  =  .175  for 
moral  qualities. 

Allowing  for  probable  error  in  Woods's  figures 
his  observed  results  of  matings  in  royal  families 
give  figures  for  mental  and  moral  heredity  remark- 
ably close  to  those  called  for  by  the  theory  of  physi- 
cal inheritance. 

Woods's  final  conclusion  in  regard  to  mental  qual- 
ities is  that  heredity  explains  at  least  ninety  per 
cent  of  intellectual  differences  in  practically  every 
instance,  and  that  environment  is  a  totally  inadequate 
explanation. 

**It  is  more  difficult,"  he  says,  "to  analyze  moral 
than  mental  qualities,  and  it  is  more  difficult  to  ar- 
range them  in  an  impersonal  grading.  But  the  re- 
sults obtained  speak  no  less  clearly  and  unequivo- 
cally for  heredity  as  the  major  cause;  though  no 
one  supposes  that  moral  education  and  training  are 
without  some  effect  on  the  formation  of  character. 
That  these  outward  circumstances  have  as  much  in- 
fluence as  is  commonly  supposed,  or  as  much  as  pre- 
determined and  congenital   causes,   are,   however, 


I 


60  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 


'I 


!! 


i 


conclusions  from  which  we  are  forced  to  dissent. 
...  I  think  that  we  can  conclude  .  .  .  that  in  each 
individual,  inheritance  plays,  in  the  formation  of 
morality,  a  force  greater  than  50  per  cent. 

I  pass  now  to  .two  matters  of  vital  concern  to 
the  theories  of  the  environmental  determinists — the 
direct  effect  which  environment  may  produce  where 
the  hereditary  influence  is  the  same;  and  the  possi- 
bility that  if,  and  to  whatever  extent,  characteristics 
are  acquired  from  the  environment,  these  acquired 
characteristics  are  transmitted  to  offspring. 

On  the  first  of  these  points  Dr.  Woods  says: — 
*'Among  plants  and  the  lower  forms  of  animals, 
especially  the  invertebrates,  many  experiments  have 
shown  the  remarkable  changes  which  may  be  di- 
rectly induced  by  changes  in  the  outward  condi- 
tions of  life.  These  are  in  general  the  more  strik- 
ing the  lower  we  go  in  the  scale  of  organic  evolu- 
tion, so  that  it  may  well  be  that  in  the  highest  at- 
tributes, namely  mental  and  moral,  we  can  expect 
the  least  results  from  outward  forces.'* 

On  the  second  point  he  says:  ^'Whether  charac- 
teristics acquired  from  the  influence  of  the  environ- 
ment are  inherited  or  not,  no  one  pretends  that  they 
are  so  inherited  more  than  in  a  very  slight  degree. 
Hence,  if  all  the  variations  which  we  have  observed 
among  children  of  the  same  parents  are  due,  not 
to  differences  in  the  germ-cells   (the  writer  claims 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  161 

they  are  due  to  differences  in  the  germ-cells),  but 
are  principally  the  result  of  surroundings,  as  is  as- 
sumed by  some  psychologists  and  educators,  then 
these  differences  observed  among  children  of  the 
same  parents  should  not  be  clearly  manifest  in  the 
various  branches  which  subsequently  arise  from 
these  children  who  vary  much  one  from  the  other. 
.  .  .  The  only  other  way  of  accounting  for  the  fact 
that  variations  among  the  children  of  the  same  par- 
ents subsequently  breed  true  to  the  different  stems 
which  arise  from  these  children,  is  to  assume  that 
acquired  characteristics  are  strongly  inherited.  As 
no  one  supposes  that  mental  traits  acquired  from  the 
environment  are  strongly  inherited,  we  are  forced 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  original  variations  them- 
selves are  not  acquired  from  the  environment,  but 
are  congenital.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  environ- 
ment has  an  exceedingly  important  effect  upon  the 
individual,  although  not  greatly  inherited.  These 
two  views,  if  coupled,  will  not  hold  together  and 
explain  the  facts.  If  we  renounce  the  in-heritance 
of  acquired  characteristics,  and  at  the  same  time 
consider  the  individual  himself  to  be  almost  en- 
tirely the  result  of  congenital  causes,  these  two 
views  mil  hold  together  and  sufficiently  explain  the 
facts.'' 

Four  years  after  the  above  words  were  written, 
Dr.  Woods  published  the  results  of  an  investigation 


1? 


^l» 


!  « 


u 


162  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

made  by  him  into  the  relative  importance  of  hered- 
ity and  environment  in  the  determination  of  human 
character.  The  article  may  be  found  in  The  Popu- 
lar  Science  Monthly  for  April,  19 10,  under  the  title 
of  "Laws  of  Diminishing  Environmental  Influence." 
"To  distinguish,"  he  says,  "between  the  relative 
importance  of  heredity  and  environment  is  not  a 
mere  academic  question,  but  a  practical  one  to  be 
answered  separately  for  each  biological  unit  and  al- 
ways with  an  eye  to  comparative  and  proportionate 
influence.  To  say  that  both  forces  are  important 
is  to  voice  a  platitude.  To  say  that  they  are  of 
equal  importance  is,  in  my  opinion,  to  express  a 
falsehood.  To  say  that  we  cannot  unravel  their 
interrelations  is  to  turn  our  back,  in  a  weak-minded 
way,  upon  a  question  of  far-reaching  consequence. 
The  disputes  and  confusions  which  have  so  long  en- 
tangled the  question  I  believe  to  be  due  to  the  fail- 
ure to  see  certain  practical,  or  common  sense  as- 
pects— the  failure  to  distinguish  between  environ- 
ments which  are  greatly  changed  and  those  which 
are  only  slightly  altered,  between  those  from  which 
escape  is  impossible  and  those  from  which  such  es- 
cape is  comparatively  easy;  the  failure  to  distin- 
guish between  environments  which  are  expected  and 
those  which  are  not,  and,  lastly,  perhaps  most  im- 
portant of  all,  the  failure  to  distinguish  between  ef- 
fects on  higher  and  on  lower  types  and  tissues." 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  163 

The  investigation  made  by  Dr.  Woods  extended 
to  plants,  to  the  low  metazoa,  to  mollusks,  to  crus- 
taceans, to  insects,  to  fishes,  to  amphibians,  to  rep- 
tiles, to  birds,  and  finally  to  mammals. 

I  will  refer  to  his  conclusions  only  in  so  far  as 
they  concern  man.     These  relate  to  physical,  men- 
tal, and  moral  traits;  and  Woods  quotes  a  number 
of  researches  whose  object  was  to  differentiate  be- 
tween the  relative  influence  of  heredity  and  environ- 
ment.    He  first  summarizes  his  own  investigation 
into  the  mental  and  moral  traits  of  royal  personages. 
".  .  .  for  various  reasons,"  he  says,  "the  individ- 
uals have  developed  under  the  greatest  variety  of 
good  and  bad  influences  as  regards  the  atmosphere 
of  their  home  life,  their  educational  advantages,  and 
opportunities   for   distinction.     Besides,   they  have 
lived  in  different  countries  and  in  different  eras. 
Yet  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  environments  show 
wide  variations,  these  appear  to  be  negligible  fac- 
tors in  the  production  of  successful  achievement  or 
in  the  creation  of  virtuous  or  vicious  types.     That 
successful  achievement  is  almost  entirely  due  to  dif- 
ferences in  germ-plasm  and  is  little  influenced  by  en- 
vironment is  the  necessary  conclusion  from  the  com- 
plete analysis  of  two  separate  groups  of  royalty." 
He  then   refers   to   a   research   made   by  E.   L. 
Thorndike  on  the  origin  of  mental  differences  among 
children  attending  the  public  schools  of  the  city  of 


m\ 


I  i 


.1 


164  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

New  York.  As  Thorndike^s  investigation  was 
based  on  the  study  of  twins,  the  hereditary  influ- 
ence for  each  pair  would  be  the  same,  quantita- 
tively, and  as  between  pair  and  pair  would  be  dif- 
ferent, qualitatively.  Thorndike  says: — **(i)  The 
results  of  precise  measurements  of  fifty  pairs  of 
twins  from  9  to  15  years  old  in  eight  physical  and 
six  mental  traits  and  (2)  their  bearing  upon  the 
comparative  importance  of  heredity  and  environ- 
ment as  causes  of  human  differences  in  intellectual 
achievement.  They  will  be  found  to  give  well-nigh 
conclusive  evidence  that  the  mental  likenesses  found 
in  the  case  of  twins  and  the  differences  found  in  the 
case  of  non-fraternal  pairs,  when  the  individuals 
belong  to  the  same  age,  locality,  and  educational  sys- 
tem, are  due,  to  at  least  nine-tenths  of  their  amount, 
to  original  nature.  ...  It  shows  such  likenesses 
and  differences  in  environment  as  act  upon  children 
living  in  New  York  City  and  attending  its  public 
schools  are  utterly  inadequate  to  explain  the  like- 
nesses and  differences  found  in  the  traits  measured, 
and  are  in  all  probability  inadequate  to  explain  more 
than  a  small  fraction  of  them.'' 

The  next  investigation  quoted  by  Woods  is  one 
conducted  in  1909  by  Karl  Pearson  and  Amy  Bar- 
rington  into  the  inheritance  of  vision  and  the  rela- 
tive influence  of  heredity  and  environment  on  sight. 
In  a  memoir  on  this  subject  the  authors  say:     **As 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  165 

far  as  the  admittedly  slender  data  of  this  first  study 
reach,  there  is :  ( i )  no  evidence  whatever  that  over- 
crowded, poverty-stricken  homes,  or  physically  ill- 
conditioned  or  immoral  parentages  are  markedly 
detrimental  to  the  children's  eye-sight.  (2)  No  suf- 
ficient or  definite  evidence  that  school  environment 
has  a  detrimental  effect  on  the  eye-sight  of  the  chil- 
dren." 

Finally,  Dr.  Woods  refers  to  a  volume  by  Ethel 
M.  Elderton  on  "The  Relative  Strength  of  Nurture 
and  Nature,"  in  which  the  author  analyzes  the  Pear- 
son-Barrington  study  of  the  eyesight  of  children, 
her  own  study  on  "The  Influence  of  Parental  Occu- 
pation and  Habit  on  the  Welfare  of  the  Offspring," 
and  Heron's  "Influence  of  Home  Environment  and 
Defective  Physique  on  the  Intelligence  of  School 
Children."  Elderton  says  of  her  studies  that  they 
"show  clearly  the  small  influence  of  environment"; 
and  writes:  "The  whole  subject  of  the  influence  of 
environment,  owing  to  its  complexity,  is  a  fascinat- 
ing one,  partly  because  we  are  only  just  beginning  to 
apply  modern  statistical  methods  to  this  side  of  eu- 
genics, and  the  results  we  obtain  are  often  very  un- 
expected, perhaps  we  may  say  wholly  contrary  to 
current  belief." 

Upon  this  statement  Woods  makes  the  follow- 
ing comment:  "That  they  are  contrary  to  current 
belief  I  do  not  deny,  but  to  say  that  they  are  un- 


1 66  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

expected  shows  little  grasp  of  the  whole  biological 
question  of  modification  or  knowledge  of  results 
of  earlier  workers.  .  .  .  All  the  evidence  that  we 
possess  renders  it  highly  improbable  that  any  of  the 
ordinary  differences  in  human  environment,  such  as 
riches  or  poverty,  good  or  bad  home  life,  have  more 
than  a  very  slight  effect  in  modifying  those  complex 
and  high  organic  functions  the  improvement  of 
which  is  the  hope  of  the  altruist  and  the  reformer. 
Not  only  do  the  collected  facts  indicate  as  much, 
but  the  reasons  for  the  same  are  not  difficult  to  un- 
derstand if  we  consider  the  laws  of  diminishing  en- 
vironmental control.'* 

Woods  then  proceeds  to  summarize  these  laws. 
**Each  organism,**  he  says,  **whether  high  or  low  in 
the  scale  of  evolution,  has  from  the  time  of  con- 
ception and  beginning  of  cell-division  and  segmenta- 
tion onward  through  embryonic  and  post-embryonic 
life  an  expected  environment.  In  other  words,  it 
expects  to  develop  and  live  under  conditions  which 
are  essentially  similar  to  those  which  surrounded  its 
immediate  ancestors  at  each  stage  of  their  career. 

*'If  the  expected  environment  is  altered,  then  the 
modification  which  will  accrue  will  in  general  di- 
minish. 

"  ( I )  In  proportion  as  the  change  from  the  ex- 
pected is  less  and  less  in  amount.  This  will  fol- 
low as  a  matter  of  course     Its  only  interest  for  us 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  167 

lies  in  the  fact  that  most  alterations  In  surroundings 
that  are  brought  to  bear  upon  human  beings  are 
probably  not  very  great  in  actual  differences.  They 
are  at  least  not  great  in  comparison  with  the  experi- 
ments of  the  botanist  and  zoologist. 

**  ( 2 )  Environmental  influence  diminishes  with  the 
increased  phylogenetic  rank.  [Phylogenetic  means, 
based  upon  ancestry,  as  opposed  to  ontogenetic, 
based  on  the  life-history  of  the  individual.    A.  I.] 

"(3)  Environmental  influence  diminishes  with 
the  evolutionary  rank  of  the  tissue  affected. 

**(4)  Environmental  influence  diminishes  in  pro- 
portion to  the  age  of  the  tissue  affected.  Artificial 
modification  then  appears  to  be  easiest  upon  tissues 
that  are  either  young  or  simple,  or  in  a  condition 
of  cell  subdivision  and  growth.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered that  the  brain-cells,  even  of  a  child,  are,  of 
all  tissues,  farthest  removed  from  any  of  these  pri- 
mordial states.  The  cells  of  the  brain  ceased  sub- 
division long  before  birth.  Therefore,  a  priori,  we 
must  expect  relatively  little  modification  of  brain 

function. 

"  ( 5 )  Environmental  influence  diminishes  with  the 
organism's  power  of  choice.  This  may  be  the  chief 
reason  why  human  beings,  who  of  all  creatures  have 
the  greatest  power  to  choose  the  surroundings  con- 
genial to  their  special  needs  and  natures,  are  so  little 
affected  by  outward  conditions.    The  occasional  able, 


1 68  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

ambitious  and  determined  member  of  an  obscure  or 
degenerate  family  can  get  free  from  his  uncongenial 
associates.  So  can  the  weak  or  lazy  or  vicious  (even 
if  a  black  sheep  from  the  finest  fold)  easily  find  his 
natural  haunts.'* 

Referring  to  the  status  of  any  generation, 
Woods  summarizes  his  final  conclusions  by  saying 
that  "Experimentally  and  statistically  there  is  not 
a  grain  of  proof  that  ordinarily  environment  can 
alter  the  salient  mental  and  moral  traits  in  any 
measurable  degree  from  what  they  were  predeter- 
mined to  be  through  innate  influences." 

I  have  quoted  at  great  length  from  Dr.  Woods's 
writings  because  they  include  not  only  the  results  of 
his  own  long  and  careful  investigations,  but  also 
those  of  other  investigators  in  the  same  field.  If 
his  conclusions  are  unsound  it  is  not  for  me,  a  lay- 
man in  biology,  to  adduce  evidence  against  his  views. 
This  duty  devolves  upon  the  professional  biologists; 
and,  so  far  as  my  own  reading  goes,  general  biolog- 
ical opinion  appears  to  support  his  hypotheses.  My 
task  has  been  to  present  a  simple  and  intelligible 
case  in  favor  of  the  theory  that  heredity  plays  a 
vastly  greater  part  than  environment  in  the  deter- 
mination of  differences  in  human  characteristics, 
physical,  mental,  and  moral. 

I  will  now  give  a  brief  account  of  the  environ- 
mentalist view  of  the  problem. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  169 

The  most  distinguished  proponent  of  environ- 
mental determinism  was  the  great  French  naturalist, 
Jean  Baptiste  Lamarck  (1744-1829).  In  his 
"Natural  History  of  the  Invertebrates,''  published 
in  1 8 15,  Lamarck  laid  down  four  laws  which,  in  his 
judgment,  determined  form  and  function  in  animal 
life.  Of  these,  the  third  and  fourth  alone  concern 
the  present  discussion.  At  the  time  I  write  I  have 
not  before  me  Lamarck's  volume,  but  I  give  these 
laws  as  they  appear,  in  quotation  marks,  In  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica: 

"3.  The  development  of  organs  and  their  force 
of  action  are  constantly  in  ratio  to  the  employment 
of  these  organs." 

'*4.  All  which  has  been  acquired,  laid  down,  or 
changed  in  the  organization  of  individuals  in  the 
course  of  their  life  is  conserved  by  generation  and 
tr^ansmitted  to  the  new  individuals  which  proceed 
from  those  which  have  undergone  those  changes." 

We  have  here  a  clear  declaration  that  form  and 
function  in  animal  life  are  determined  directly  by 
environmental  influences,  and  that  characteristics 
acquired  from  the  environment  are  transmitted  by 
inheritance. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  Lamarck  wrote  the  words 
I  have  quoted  nearly  half  a  century  before  Darwin 
furnished,  in  his  theory  of  natural  selection,  that 
explanation   of  the   phenomena   of  structural  and 


170  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

functional  differences  which  is  almost  universally 
accepted  to-day  by  specialists  in  the  natural  sciences. 
The  Lamarckian  theory  finds  its  chief  support, 
therefore,  amongst  sociologists,  not  amongst  spe- 
cialists in  the  natural  sciences;  but  even  amongst  the 
sociologists  the  amount  of  this  support  is  dwin- 
dling. 

During  the  past  few  years  a  very  interesting  dis- 
cussion of  the  Lamarckian  theory  has  been  published 
in  various  books  and  periodicals,  based  upon  the 
views  of  Mr.  C.  L.  Redfield,  a  Chicago  engineer. 
Mr.  Redfield's  view  is  that  "Educating  the  grand- 
father helps  to  make  the  grandson  a  superior  per- 
son. .  .  .  We  are,  in  our  inheritance,  exactly  what 
our  ancestors  made  us  by  the  work  they  performed 
before  reproducing.  Whether  our  descendants  are 
to  be  better  or  worse  than  we  are  will  depend  upon 
the  amount  and  kind  of  work  we  do  before  we  pro- 
duce them." 

Redfield's  theory  is  discussed  at  great  length  by 
Professor  M.  H.  Fischer,  of  the  University  of  Cin- 
cinnati, in  No.  22  of  the  Unpopular  Review  (April- 
June,  19 19)  ;  and  as  his  article  is  strongly  favorable 
to  Redfield's  views,  and  as  it  is  from  the  pen  of  a 
man  of  standing  In  the  world  of  biological  science, 
I  feel  that  I  can  be  doing  no  injustice  to  the  theory 
if  I  draw  my  account  of  it  from  Professor  Fischer's 
discussion. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  171 

After  referring  to  the  unsatisfactory  nature  of 
the  results  produced  by  attempting  to  correlate  form 
with  function,  Professor  Fischer  extols  the  system 
of  the  functional  classification  of  characters.  *'In 
this  Is  stressed  not  the  weight  or  shape  of  an  organ 
or  organism,  but  its  ability  to  do  work.  It  becomes 
now,  not  the  brown  or  blue  of  an  eye,  but  its  ability 
to  see;  not  the  weight  of  brain  substance,  but  its 
po^er  to  think;  not  the  shape  of  a  limb,  but  its 
power  to  yield  quantity  or  speed  or  accuracy  of 

motion." 

Viewed  from  this  standpoint,  what  is  the  real 
question  at  Issue  in  regard  to  acquired  character, 
and  to  its  hereditary  transmission?    Professor  Fis- 
cher  clears  the  ground  for  the  examination  of  these 
issues  by  quoting  and  discussing  the  following  defi- 
nition of  an  acquired  character,  advanced  by  Red- 
field:    **If  you  look  into  your  dictionaries  you  will 
see  that  to  acquire  means  to  obtain  by  your  own 
effort.     A  mutilation  is,  therefore,  not  an  acquire- 
ment.    When  the  tails  of  mice  are  amputated  the 
acquirement  Is  in  the  muscles  of  the  amputator,  not 
In  the  tails  of  the  mice.*'    Fischer  continues :  "Here 
Is  dealt  the  Brutus  stab  at  Weismann's  heart;  for 
his  tailless-mice  argument  (together  with  some  high 
priori  assumptions  regarding  germ  cells)  Is  the  foun- 
dation of  his  and  his  followers^  biological  philosophy. 
...  Our  quotation  [from  Redfield]  still  holds  the 


172  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

environment  importani:  in  the  biological  drama — 
how  very  important  we  shall  see  later — but  it  no 
longer  remains  the  purely  external  thing  which,  willy- 
nilly,  cqmpels  change  in  the  individual,  but  one  which 
makes  the  individual  a  partner  in  the  affair,  and  this 
in  proportion  to  his  reaction  to  that  environment. 
This  revised  point  of  view  makes  valueless,  so  far 
as  any  importance  for  the  problem  of  the  inheritance 
of  acquired  characters  is  concerned,  all  the  number- 
less experiffnents  In  which  plants  or  animals  have 
been  mutilated  (by  nature,  by  war  or  by  laboratory 
experiment),  poisoned,  or  grown  under  abnormal 
circumstances  in  order  to  see  if  the  offspring  would 
not  reproduce  the  physical  stigmata  which  had  been 
inflicted  upon  the  parents.    Regularly  such  stigmata 
have  not  been  reproduced.     But  these  experiments 
of  man  or  nature  do  not  prove,  as  is  so  often  claimed, 
that  acquired  characteristics  are  not  inherited.    They 
only  prove  that  mutilations  enforced  by  accident  or 
design  are  not  inherited.     The  error  is  not  in  the 
response  of  nature  but  in  the  foolish  reasoning  of 
man  which  labels  as  acquired  a  character  which  has 
only  been  inflicted  upon  an  unresponsive  recipient. 
Is  there  at  hand  any  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
any  *new'  character,   as  thus  de;fined  In  terms  of 
function,  In  either  animal  or  plant  strains,  which 
was  not  present  In  earlier  generations,  and,  if  so, 
how  was  It  'acquired'?     Or,  given  such  a  truly  ac- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  173 

quired  character,  can  It  be  transmitted  to  another 

generation?'' 

It  Is  to  the  discovery  of  such  evidence  that  Red- 
field  has  devoted  much  painstaking  research.  His 
attention  was  attracted  to  the  subject  many  years 
ago  through  his  Interest  In  horses,  and  especially  In 
trotting  horses.  He  noted  that  In  1818  the  trotting 
record  was  held  by  Boston  Blue,  which  made  the 
mile  In  exactly  three  minutes;  that  year  by  year  this 
record  was  reduced;  and  that  In  19 12  Uhlan  cap- 
tured It  by  making  the  mile  In  the  phenomenal  time 
of  one  minute  and  fifty-eight  seconds. 

The  problem  which  Redfield  attacked  was  that 
of  accounting  for  this  great  Increase  of  speed  in 
trotting  horses.  Was  it  due  to  the  special  creation, 
de  novo,  of  a  faster  horse,  or  was  it  due  to  the  emerg- 
ence in  a  particular  horse  of  a  latent  speed-capacity 
which  Is  dormant  In  all  horses?  If  the  first  of  these 
alternatives  were  accepted  we  should  have  a  reason 
for,  but  not  an  explanation  of,  trotting  speed;  the 
second  alternative  presents  an  opportunity  for  dis- 
cussion. 

If  we  begin  by  admitting,  as  everybody  must  ad- 
mit, that  better  tra.Ining  will,  for  any  given  horse, 
produce  higher  speed  than  poor  training  or  no 
training  will  yield,  we  have  then  to  account  for  the 
well-known  fact  that  under  closely  similar  training 
conditions  horses  which  are  full  brothers  or  sisters 


174  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

give  wholly  different  speed  records.  Redfield's  ex- 
planation of  this  phenomenon  is  that  horses  used  for 
racing  are  comparatively  rarely  used  for  breeding, 
and  that  horses  used  for  breeding  are  comparatively 
rarely  raced,  and  that  it  is  the  quality  of  speed  ac- 
quired by  actual  racing  which  is  passed  on  to  the 
progeny  of  raced  horses.  In  support  of  this  opinion 
Redfield  produces  a  great  deal  of  statistical  material 
drawn  from  the  history  of  horse-racing  and  from 
the  records  of  horse-breeding. 

Summarized,  Redfield's  conclusion  is  that  there 
is  a  marked  difference  between  the  quality  of  horses 
foaled  during  or  soon  after  a  prolonged  period  of 
hard  work  on  the  track  by  the  sire  and  that  of 
horses  foaled  before  such  work  has  been  performed. 
If  this  is  true,  as  a  matter  of  accurate  observation, 
Redfield  asserts  that  the  fact  is  accounted  for  by  the 
inheritance  in  the  foal  of  that  quality  which  was 
developed  by  the  hard  work  of  the  parent. 

I  may  quote  some  of  the  evidence  used  in 
Fischer's  article.  Two  hundred  sons  of  Almont 
were  used  for  breeding  purposes.  Of  these  ten 
per  cent  were  raced  while  ninety  per  cent  were  kept 
at  home.  As  the  successful  sires  of  racing  stock  the 
raced  sons  outranked  the  unraced  as  sixteen  to  one. 
Belmont,  another  horse,  lived  half  of  his  twenty- 
five  years  in  hard  training  and  exercise,  and  half  in 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  175 

idleness.  His  best  sons  were  born  during  his  period 
of  activity,  and  of  these  sons,  the  best  two  were  born 
at  its  height,  and  within  two  years  of  each  other. 
The  transition  from  the  father  of  performers  to 
the  father  of  mediocrities  was  coincident  with  his 
change  from  work  to  idleness.  From  a  study  of  the 
history  of  six  horses,  which  were  the  fathers  of  sev- 
eral thousands  of  immediate  offspring  and  of  sev- 
eral tens  of  thousands  of  grandchildren  it  was  found 
that  three  thousand  of  the  progeny  fell  in  the  per- 
former class.  Half  of  these,  and  practically  all  of 
the  best  ones,  came  from  less  than  one  hundred 
sons  and  the  same  number  of  daughters  of  the  orig- 
inal six,  and  they  were  all  born  at  a  time  when  the 
sires  were  in  the  best  state  of  active  development. 

From  such  evidence  and  from  much  more  of  a 
similar  character  drawn  from  the  study  of  cows 
and  dogs,  Redfield  decides  that  acquired  physical 
traits  are  transmitted  by  inheritance.  Does  the  same 
rule  apply  to  mental  traits  in  man? 

Redfield's  argument  on  this  point  is  addressed  to 
proving  that  the  age  of  the  father  at  the  time  of 
a  child's  birth  has  a  direct  and  important  influence 
upon  the  qualities  of  the  child.  The  analogy  he 
suggests  is  that  as  physical  traits  acquired  through 
the  exercise  of  physical  faculties  by  the  parent  can 
be  transmitted  to  offspring,  so  also  can  mental  traits 


176  Demcx:racy  and  the  Human  Equation 

acquired  through  the  exercise  of  the  mental  fac- 
ulties. 

A  presupposition  in  favor  of  this  theory  would 
be  created  if  it  could  be  shown  that  eminent  per- 
sons were  born  later  in  the  life  of  their  fathers  than 
were  persons  of  less  distinguished  abilities.  Red- 
field  produces  a  good  deal  of  evidence  which,  he  be- 
lieves, proves  this  to  be  the  case. 

A  study  of  New  England  families  shows  that  the 
average  age  of  fathers  and  mothers  at  the  time  of 
birth  of  their  children  is  about  thirty-three  years. 
A  study  of  571  men,  selected  for  their  eminence, 
indicated  that  the  average  time  between  the  birth 
of  the  father  and  the  birth  of  the  son  was  40.7  years 
instead  of  the  New  England  figure  of  33  years. 
Fischer  points  out  that,  on  the  basis  of  Redfield's 
data,  if  the  probability  of  being  eminent  when  born 
of  a  father  between  thirty-five  and  forty  is  taken 
as  unity,  the  probability  if  born  when  the  father  is 
twenty-five  is  less  than  one-fifth  as  great,  and  that, 
ascending  the  age  scale,  the  probability  at  fifty  to 
fifty-five  is  five  times  that  at  thirty-five  to  forty;  and 
over  sixty,  it  is  over  ten  times  that. 

Fischer's  general  observations  on  the  significance 
of  Redfield's  theory  are  as  follows: — 

*'What  now  are  some  of  the  practical  truths  to  be 
deduced  from  all  these  facts?  There  has  been,  first 
of  all,  much  unfortunate  effort  by  the  proponents 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  177 

of  the  separate  theories  to  make  the  Lamarckian 
principle  and  that  of  Mendelian  inheritance  *  mu- 
tually exclusive.    The  two  views  can,  without  com- 
promise, go  hand  in  hand;  and  for  the  thinker  in 
biological  and  human  problems,  it  is  only  necessary 
in  any  specific  instance  to  see  to  it  that  proper  weight 
is  given  to  each  of  the  two  elements,  and  to  keep 
clearly  in  mind  what  each  idea,  if  put  to  work,  can 
accomplish.     The  old  saying  has  it  that  ^heredity 
is  something  which  a  father  should  never  forget, 
and  a  son  never  remember.'     In  plainer  terms,  a 
parent  should  take  stock  of  the  articles  of  his  Men- 
delian inheritance,  and,  when  good,  see  to  it  that 
they  go  on  in  undiminished  or  increased  vigor  to 
his  children.     If  of  the  fortunately  endowed  of  this 
earth,  and  married  to  such  another,  he  could,  as  a 
pure  Mendelian,  merely  lie  back  and  feel  secure  that 
quality  will  reappear  in  his  children.     But  if  he  U 
a  Lamarckian,  he  knows  that  eternal  vigilance  is 
required  in  addition.     A  too  happy  satisfaction  in 
having  been  born  biologically  rich,  breeds  compla- 
cency;    of    complacency,    self-satisfaction;^  and,    of 
self-satisfaction,  ruin.     Conversely,  a  decision  that 
he  is  nothing,  the  determination  that  he  will  strive 
and  strive  mightily  ^nd  then  beget  his  children,  may 

♦In  this  connection  Mendelism  is  sufficiently  defined  as  an  inheri- 
tance theory  according  to  which  charactenstics  acquired  Jrom 
environment  are  not  transmitted  to  offspring,  and  Lamarckism 
as  one  according  to  which  they  are  transmitted. 


I^V 


178  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

mean  in  the  new  generation  the  start  of  the  super- 
man. 

**And  here  it  is  that  there  enters  the  gospel  of 
hope.  I  confess  that  ardently  as  I  have  pleaded, 
and  still  hold,  that  due  consideration  be  given  the 
Mendelian  Law,  conversely  depressing  has  seemed 
to  me  the  corollary  that  cursed  are  forever  the  lowly 
of  physique,  of  mind  and  of  soul.  I  would  not  now 
too  lightly  give  support  to  the  soft  hand  of  senti- 
mentality, in  its  protection  of  the  submerged  and 
largely  useless  lowermost  human  fraction.  I  set 
no  such  stock  by  it  as  do  industrial  chiefs  with  their 
eternal  cry  for  cheap  (and  feeble-minded)  labor. 
But  for  those  who  stand  above  this,  in  the  middle 
ground,  the  philosophy  and  the  practice  which  re- 
ward effort  with  new  and  better  characters,  and 
which  shows  the  way  of  transmitting  these  superior 
characters  to  an  oncoming  generation,  is  full  of  the 
better  cheer.  Though  the  family  of  our  neighbor 
may  begin  with  the  advantage  of  richer  ground, 
ours  may,  through  better  effort,  equal  and  excel  his." 

In  the  above  paragraph  Fischer  employs  in  two 
places  a  terminology  which  clouds  the  point  at  is- 
sue. He  says  that  **proper"  weight  should  be  given 
to  each  of  the  two  elements,  heredity  and  environ- 
ment; and  that  "due"  consideration  should  be  given 
the  Mendelian  law.  But  it  is  clear  that  the  whole 
matter  hinges   upon   a   quantitative   evaluation   of 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  179 

**proper"  and  "due."  No  one  would  advise  a 
reader  to  give  "improper"  weight  to  each  of  the 
two  elements,  or  to  give  "undue"  consideration  to 
the  Mendelian  law.  Employed  as  Professor 
Fischer  employs  them,  the  words  "proper"  and 
**due"  have  no  meaning  whatever. 

It  is  a  curious  instance  of  the  extent  to  which  the 
heredity-environment  problem  Is  complicated  by  the 
strong  emotional  appeal  made  by  the  environmen- 
talist argument  that  Professor  Fischer,  writing  as 
a  scientist,  should  have  referred  to  one  corollary  as 
^'depressing"  to  him,  and  to  the  other  as  being 
**full  of  the  better  cheer."  These  phrases  were 
surely  employed  inadvertently,  for  Professor  Fischer 
knows,  quite  as  well  as  everybody  else,  that  the 
soundness  of  the  Mendelian  law  or  of  Redfield's 
application  of  Lamarckism  has  nothing  to  do  with 
whether  either  of  them  is  cheering  or  depressing. 

Redfield^s  views  are  discussed  by  Popenoe  and 
Johnson  in  the  work  to  which  I  have  already  re- 
ferred, and  by  Raymond  Pearl  In  the  Journal  of 
Heredity  for  June,  1915.  Each  of  these  discus- 
sions expresses  strong  dissent  from  Redfield's  opin- 
ions. Raymond  Pearl,  Biologist  of  the  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station'  at  Orono,  Maine,  says :  "There 
are  few  pages  of  the  book  (Redfield's  "Dynamic 
Evolution")  which  do  not  contain  some  statement, 
put  in  the  form  of  a  positive,  dogmatic  assertion, 


N^^ 


1 80  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

which  either  has  no  foundation  in  fact  whatever  be- 
cause the  subject  has  never  been  investigated,  or  is 
contrary  to  well-known  data  in  the  literature  of  bi- 
ology. .  .  .  Like  all  pseudo-science,  Mr.  Redfield's 
is  a  conglomerate  mixture  of  the  true,  the  false,  and 
the  unknown." 

Popenoe  and  Johnson,  though  not  quite  so  se- 
vere as  Pearl,  are  equally  positive  that  Redfield  has 
not  proved  his  case.  They  say:  **Mr.  Redfield's 
whole  conception  of  the  increase  of  intelligence  with 
increase  of  age  in  a  parent  shows  a  disregard  of  the 
facts  of  psychology.  As  E.  A.  Doll  has  pointed  out 
{Journal  of  Education,  Feb.  i,  19 17)  in  criticiz- 
ing Mr.  Redfield's  recent  and  extreme  claim  that 
feeble-mlndedness  is  the  product  of  early  marriage, 
it  is  incorrect  to  speak  of  20-,  30-,  or  40-year  stand- 
ards of  intelligence;  for  recent  researches  in  meas- 
urement of  mental  development  indicate  that  the 
heritable  standard  of  intelligence  of  adults  increases 
very  little  beyond  the  age  of  approximately  16  years. 
A  person  40  years  old  has  an  additional  experience 
of  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  so  has  a  larger  mental 
content,  but  his  Intelligence  Is  still  nearly  at  the  16- 
year  level.  ...  To  suppose  that  a  father  can,  by 
study,  raise  his  innate  level  of  intelligence  and  trans- 
mit it  at  the  new  level  to  his  son,  is  a  naive  idea 
which  finds  no  warrant  in  the  known  facts  of  men- 
tal development." 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  i8i 

Although  they   are   convinced  that   Redfield  is 
wholly  mistaken  in  the  interpretation  he  places  upon 
the  facts  he  has  been  at  so  much  pains  to  collect, 
Popenoe  and  Johnson  agree  that  these  facts  deserve 
careful  study;  and  it  is  this  attitude  toward  all  facts 
which  is  the  distinguishing  mark  of  the  true  scientist. 
Mr.   Redfield,   who   deserves  the   credit  which 
rightly  belongs  to  every  one  who  is  an  earnest  pur- 
suer of  truth,  has  not  showed  himself  to  be  very 
sensible  of  the  motives  by  which  his  critics  have 
been  guided.     In  an  article  printed  in  the  Western 
Medical  Times  for  October,  191 8,  Redfield  refers 
to  Raymond  Pearl's  criticisms  as  "flat  falsehood  de- 
signed to  deceive  the  public  and  to  sling  mud  at 
me"  •  and  says :    "There  are  several  persons  besides 
Pearl  who  have  planted  themselves  in  the  roadway 
and  seem  determined  to  prevent  this  information 
from  getting  to  the  public  no  matter  how  many  false- 
hoods it  may  be  necessary  to  utter  or  how  much  mud 
it  may  be  necessary  to  sling. 

Every  one,  Raymond  Pearl  included,  will  always 
be  grateful  to  Mr.  Redfield  for  every  fact  which  his 
labors  unearth ;  but  Redfield's  interpretation  of  his 
facts  can  be  of  no  value  until  it  has  been  subjected 
to  the  most  severe  test  of  dissent;  and  it  is  from 
such  a  test  that  every  theory  secures  its  opportumty 
to  establish  its  soundness.  . 

To  sum  up :  There  is  no  doubt  that  at  the  pres- 


1 82  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

ent  time  the  opinion  of  those  best  qualified  to  form 
a  judgment  is  that  a  man's  mental  and  moral  quali- 
ties, as  well  as  the  effectiveness  with  which  he  will 
employ  them,  are  chiefly  determined  by  causes  which 
operate  before  he  is  born;  and  that  the  influences  to 
which  he  is  subjected  after  birth  play  a  subordinate 
part  in  determining  the  quality  of  his  actions  through 
life. 

The  position  we  are  now  in  is  this:  Political 
agency  enters  into  the  determination  of  every  ques- 
tion which  arises  in  regard  to  our  social,  industrial, 
and  economic  life;  we  assign  to  practically  every 
adult  citizen  an  equal  share  of  power  in  giving  po- 
litical agency  its  general  and  its  special  character; 
but  we  have  not  yet  determined  upon  what  elements 
depend  the  qualities  of  these  units  of  equal  political 
power. 

It  is  clear,  however,  that  until  we  distinguish  these 
elements  and  assign  to  them  some  priority  in  order 
and  in  importance,  our  efforts  to  improve  the  qual- 
ity of  citizenship,  and  thus  the  quality  of  political 
agency  are  foredoomed  to  failure,  for  unity  of  pur- 
pose cannot  be  made  effective  where  there  is  diver- 
sity of  understanding. 

Every  controllable  influence  which  can  elevate  or 
degrade  the  quality  of  citizenship  is  derived  from 
one  of  two  sources — from  the  inheritance  with  which 
one  enters  life,  or  from  the  experience  one  encoun- 


DEMOCRACY  AND  THE  HUMAN  EQUATION    1 83 

ters  in  it.  Those  who  believe  that  it  is  to  the  lat- 
ter source  that  character  and  conduct  are  to  be  traced 
must  accept  the  responsibility  for  the  world  as  it 
is,  for  our  present  state  is  the  consequence  of  acting 

upon  that  view.  . 

If  it  is  indeed  through  environmental  mtluence 
that  men  are  made  what  they  are,  what  answer  will 
the  environmentalists  make  to  the  charge  that  they 
have  done  so  little  to  improve  the  lot  of  mankind, 
having  at  their  disposal  an  agency  which  they  be- 
lieve to  be  all-powerful  and  which,  in  fact,  is  com- 
paratively easy  to  apply? 

Those  who  take  the  opposite  view— that  men  are 
what  they  are  chiefly  because  their  progenitors  were 
what  they  were— have  not,  as  yet,  secured  popular 
recognition  of  the  importance  of  their  investigations 
or  of  the  practical  uses  to  which  some  of  their  con- 
elusions  might  be  put.     But  signs  are  not  wanting 
that  the  prevailing  resistance  to  a  biological  inter- 
pretation of  social  phenomena  is  weakening,  and 
that  the  science  of  Eugenics-which  employs  the 
data  of  biology  and  of  sociology-will  soon  be  given 
the  important  place  it  deserves  among  what  I  may 
call  the  authoritative  sciences. 


i  I 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  foregoing  discussion  of  the  influences 
which  make  men  what  they  are  leads  nat- 
urally to  a  discussion  of  the  influences  which  make 
governments  what  they  are;  and  there  has  never 
been  a  time  when  a  brief  and  frank  statement  of 
the  broad  elements  of  political  determinism  has 
been  more  urgently  needed  than  it  is  at  this  mo- 
ment. 

There  is  to  be  observed  In  almost  every  country 
in  the  world,  by  no  means  excepting  the  United 
States,  serious  dissatisfaction  with  the  general  con- 
ditions of  society  and  of  politics;  and  this  discon- 
tent IS  asserting  itself  in  a  hundred  forms  whilst 
governments  are  called  upon  to  face  internal  prob- 
lems of  unprecedented  complexity  and  magnitude. 
Of  these  it  is  suflScient  to  mention  the  high  cost  of 
living,  the  low  state  of  production,  and  the  conflict 
between  organized  labor  and  the  unorganized  social 
majority  for  the  real  control  of  the  State. 

Nor  can  these  problems  be  regarded  as  phenom- 
ena of  the  War's  aftermath;  all  that  the  War  has 
done  in  relation  to  them  is  to  hasten  the  pace  with 

184 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  185 

which  during  the  past  twenty  years  they  have  been 
advancing  toward  the  critical  stage.  Before  the 
outbreak  of  the  War  it  had  already  become^  appar- 
ent  to  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  world's  intel- 
ligence that  Democracy  had  failed  to  find  a  satis- 
factory solution  for  any  of  the  fundamental  issues 
of  industry,  of  education,  of  business  morality,  of 

social  welfare. 

There  was  a  time  when  people  were  supposed  to 
solve  these  problems  for  themselves;  and  at  that 
time,  as  long  as  the  Government  gave  the  people  a 
reasonably  efficient  protection  for  their  lives  and 
property,  and  maintained  impartial  courts  of  law 
for  the  settlement  of  their  more  serious  disputes, 
most  men  left  Government  alone,  and  expected  Gov- 
ernment to  leave  them  alone.    Those  were  the  days 
when,  in  the  United  States,  Liberty  was  prized  above 
all  other  boons,  when,  for  the  sake  of  Liberty,  men 
were  willing  to  forego  many  social  advantages  which 
only  a  regulative  restriction  of  Liberty  could  pro- 
vide.     The  spirit  of  the  time  interpreted  Liberty  m 
the  sense  expressed  by  one  of  England's  most  dis- 
tinguished  Liberal  statesmen,  Sir  William  Harcourt. 
Speaking  at  Oxford,  in  1873,  he  said:     *Tiberty 
does  not  consist  in  making  others  do  what  you  thmk 
right.     The  difference  between  a  free  Government 
and  a  Government  which  is  not  free  is  principally 
this— that  a  Government  which  is  not  free  inter- 


1 1 


.    I'; 


1 86  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

feres  with  everything  it  can,  and  a  free  Govern- 
ment interferes  with  nothing  except  what  it  must. 
A  despotic  Government  tries  to  make  everybody  do 
what  it  wishes,  a  Liberal  Government  tries,  so  far 
as  the  safety  of  society  will  permit,  to  allow  every- 
body to  do  what  he  wishes." 

'  In  the  United  States,  for  perhaps  the  first  half- 
century  of  the  life  of  the  Republic,  Liberty  and  Jus- 
tice went  hand  in  hand;  and  they  produced,  as  they 
always  have  produced  and  always  will  produce,  great 
inequalities  of  fortune.  The  general  character  of 
society  was  one  of  firm  individualism;  men  suc- 
ceeded or  failed  on  their  personal  qualities;  and  the 
theory,  now  so  popular,  was  then  unborn,  that  a 
man's  success  depends  chiefly  upon  what  good  luck 
or  the  efforts  of  others  accomplish  for  him,  and  that 
a  man's  failure  is  not  to  be  set  down  to  his  own  de- 
fects but  to  the  failure  of  society  to  give  him  a 
chance.  In  those  days  no  man  could  have  earned 
popular  applause,  as  it  has  been  earned  in  this  day, 
by  inventing  the  phrase  *'Guilt  is  personal";  to  that 
generation  everything  was  personal,  and  above  all 
things,  success  was  personal  and  failure  was  per- 
sonal. 

So  long  as  the  country  remained  predominatingly 
agricultural  in  its  production  the  penalty  of  individ- 
ual failure  was  not  severe.     Where  land  was  plen- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  187 

tiful  and  labor  scarce,  or  at  least  very  rarely  in 
oversupply,  employment  of  one  sort  or  another  was 
available  for  practically  every  one  who  sought  it, 
and  there  was  little  real  distress  among  the  popula- 
tion.  The  circumstances  were  such  that  the  unem- 
ployable were  easily  identified  and  were  held  in  de- 
served contempt. 

But  it  was  inevitable  that  these  conditions  should 
change  as  the  country  was  developed.     Gradually 
manufactures  grew  up,  and  there  occurred  in  the 
United  States  during  the  second  half  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  what  had  occurred  in  England  during 
the  first  half,  a  marked  increase  in  the  urban  popu- 
lation.    In    1850  there  was  in  the  United  States 
only  one  city  with  more  than  200,000  inhabitants, 
and  there  were  only  eleven  with  more  than  50,000. 
In  1900  there  were  twenty-one  cities  with  nriore  than 
200,000   inhabitants,   and   seventy-nine   with   more 

than  50,000. 

The  growth  of  the  urban  population  exerted  a 
powerful  influence  over  the  character  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. In  the  earlier  days  of  the  Republic  the 
range  of  Government  activity  had  been  extremely 
limited;  few  tasks  were  undertaken  by  it  of  which 
the  voters  could  not  understand  the  object  or  ap- 
preciate the  expediency,  or  for  the  performance  of 
which  the  possession  of  ordinary  common  sense  did 


\  1 


1 88  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

not  suffice.  Government,  one  may  say,  was  on  the 
administrative  side  99  per  cent  common  sense,  and 
I  per  cent  technique. 

In  the  small  country  communities  nearly  every 
child  grew  to  manhood  or  womanhood  whilst  shar- 
ing with  its  elders  the  daily  tasks  of  the  farm  or 
of  the  village.  There  was  work  to  be  done  alone, 
and  work  to  be  done  in  company  with  others,  and 
by  the  time  a  youth  reached  voting  age  he  was  fa- 
miliar  with  the  practical  details  of  domestic  econ- 
omy,  and  with  the  simple  functions  of  the  Govern- 
ment, so  far  as  they  affected  him.  What  was  even 
more  important  was  that  in  regard  to  the  five  sim- 
ple elements  of  living — housing,  food,  heat,  light, 
and  clothing— he  usually  took  some  part  in  provid- 
ing them.  There  was  thus  forced  upon  his  atten- 
tion every  day  the  fact  that  what  others  could  do  for 
him  he  could  do  for  himself,  and  that  what  he  could 
do  for  himself  others  were  not  expected  to  do  for 
him.  Behind  all  this  was  the  extremely  favorable 
condition  that  the  proportion  of  property  owners 
and  their  prospective  heirs  to  propertyless  wage- 

earners  was  very  high. 

The  average  American  during  the  first  half-cen- 
tury of  the  national  life  was,  especially  in  the  more 
populous  northern  and  eastern  States,  a  practical, 
self-reliant  individual,  hard-headed,  and  perhaps, 
rather  hard-hearted,  but  very  much  his  own  man. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  189 

His  relation  to  Government  was  determined  by  two 
considerations,  one  that,  generally  speaking,  he  knew 
the  men  he  voted  for,  the  other  that,  since  it  was 
not  until  the  time  of  Andrew  Jackson  that  any  one 
had  thought  of  adding  to  the  other  recognized  func- 
tions of  Government  that  of  providing  offices  for 
its  friends,  politics  had  not  yet  been  classified  among 
the  gainful  occupations. 

It  is  in  such  circumstances  and  among  such  a 
people  that  Representative  Republicanism  yields  re- 
sults which  entitle  it  to  all  the  praise  which  has  been 
bestowed  upon  it.  There  is  no  doubt  that  down  to 
as  late  as  1825  it  had  given  the  country  what  the 
Representative  system,  rightly  understood,  is  in- 
tended  to  give  a  country,  and  what,  rightly  applied, 
it  will  give  it— an  aristocratic  Government,  a  Gov- 
ernment by  the  best.  Where  it  had  been  least  suc- 
cessful in  doing  this  (in  the  States  of  New  York 
and  Pennsylvania)  was  where  the  growth  of  large 
towns  had  already  begun  to  produce  those  political 
changes  which  were  to  go  so  far  and  were  destined, 
if  we  regard  things  and  not  the  names  of  things,  to 
destroy  Representative  Republicanism  so  far  as  it 
is  a  living  principle  of  Government  and  not  a  mere 

institutional  form.     • 

With  the  development  of  the  manufacturing  in- 
dustries, and  the  consequent  growth  of  the  urban 
population,  several  important  new  influences  began 


190  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

to  make  themselves  felt  in  American  Government. 
As  the  number  and  size  of  the  towns  Increased  so 
did  the  proportion  of  urban  voters  to  the  rural  vot- 
ers, and  from  this,  as  time  passed,  several  serious 
consequences  ensued.  The  average  voter  in  a  large 
town  brings  into  politics  a  mentality  utterly  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  country  voter.  It  is  the  mind 
of  the  propertyless  wage-earner,  of  the  clerk,  of 
the  shop  assistant,  of  the  day  laborer,  of  a  man 
herded  with  other  men  and  profoundly  affected  by 
the  herd-instinct,  of  a  man  of  weak  individuality,  of 
a  man  who  spends  his  working  hours  doing  things 
for  other  people  and  his  leisure  hours  in  having 
things  done  for  him  by  other  people,  of  a  man  whose 
life  is  passed  in  surroundings  entirely  created  by 
machinery  and  in  circumstances  where  his  free-will 
is  perpetually  constrained  by  the  contagion  of  an 
artificial  environment,  of  a  man  who  knows  (or  at 
any  rate  of  whom  it  is  known)  that  if  he  drops  dead 
while  at  his  work  he  can,  in  normal  times,  be  re- 
placed in  an  hour  by  another  man  who  will  do  just 
as  well.  His  whole  existence  Is  passed  in  the  fever- 
ish occupations  of  earning  his  wages  and  of  spend- 
ing them.  He  is  hardly  ever  brought  Into  contact 
with  the  origins  of  things.  To  him  a  house  Is  some- 
thing produced  by  a  real-estate  agent,  food  some- 
thing taken  from  a  counter  or  emptied  out  of  a  can, 
heat  something  which  he  hopes  to  get  by  opening  the 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  191 

valve  of  a  radiator,  light  something  which  appears 
in  a  glass  bulb  in  one  part  of  a  room  when  he  presses 
a  button  In  another  part  of  it.  Of  the  processes 
by  which  these  things,  and  all  others  which  supply 
his  needs,  are  produced  he  is  entirely  Ignorant.  He 
is  Incapable,  therefore,  of  realizing,  as  the  country- 
man is  always  compelled  to  realize,  the  inescapable 
mesh  of  causation  in  which  he  is  entangled.  For 
the  countryman  there  are  the  sowing  and  the  reap- 
ing, the  work  In  the  wood-lot  and  the  winter's  supply 
of  fuel,  the  care  of  stock  and  the  Income  from  their 
sale.  If  the  countryman  will  have  the  one  he  must 
do  the  other.  He  Is  always  face  to  face  with  real- 
ity, because.  In  relation  to  the  actual  problem  of 
living,  he  must  know  what  is  to  be  done,  must  be 
able  to  do  It,  and  must  be  willing,  if  necessary,  to 
do  It  himself.  No  one  who  has  had  occasion  to  ob- 
serve closely  town  life  and  country  life  In  the  United 
States  can  have  failed  to  be  impressed  by  the  self- 
helpfulness  of  the  countryman  and  the  self-helpless- 
ness of  the  townsman.  It  Is  true  that  the  country- 
man has  little  understanding  of  the  real  elements 
of  the  townsman's  problems,  and  that  the  townsman 
has  little  understanding  of  the  countryman's;  but, 
these  things  being  equal,  what  distinguishes  the 
countryman  from  the  townsman  In  his  relation  to 
politics  Is  that  the  former  does  understand  his  own, 
comparatively  simple  problems,  and  that  the  latter 


192  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

does  not,  and  in  the  nature  of  things  cannot,  under- 
stand the  extremely  complicated  and  difficult  prob- 
lems of  a  city  community. 

Another  circumstance  which  separates  the  rural 
from  the  urban  citizen,  and  which  has  an  important 
bearing  upon  Government,  is  that  the  countryman 
can,  without  aid  from  Government,  supply  himself 
with  all  the  absolute  necessities  of  life,  and  that  the 
townsman,  even  with  all  the  aid  that  Government 
can  afford  him,  cannot  supply  himself  with  one  of 
them.  If  the  town-dwellers  all  went  on  strike,  the 
countryman  would  have  to  get  along  without  new 
supplies  of  alarm  clocks,  sewing  machines,  enamel- 
ware,  and  agricultural  implements;  if  the  countrymen 
went  on  strike  the  town-dweller  would  have  to  get 
along  without  new  supplies  of  bread,  meat,  milk, 
and  vegetables. 

From  the  standpoint  of  Government,  then,  there 
are  really  two  nations  from  which  Government 
springs  and  to  which  it  is  administered,  not  a  nation 
of  rich  and  a  nation  of  poor,  as  the  distinction  has 
sometimes  been  made,  but  a  rural  nation,  which  re- 
quires very  little  from  Government,  receives  very 
little  from  it,  and  pays  very  little  for  it;  and  an 
urban  nation  which  makes  upon  Government  the 
most  stupendous  demands,  endows  Government  with 
an  enormous  revenue,  and  gets  from  Government  an 
altogether  Inadequate  return. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  193 

No  discussion  of  the  causes  which  make  govern- 
ments what  they  are  can  neglect  to  take  account  of 
this  distinction.  Some  of  the  most  serious  difficul- 
ties which  governments  now  face  are  due  to  the  em- 
ployment on  every  political  occasion  of  the  undif- 
ferentiated term  'The  People"  to  describe  a  citi- 
zenry, so  split  up  by  diversity  of  interest  that  as  be- 
tween the  country-nation  and  the  city-nation  there 
are  very  few  measures  of  public  legislation  which, 
if  they  appear  clearly  desirable  to  the  one  do  not 
appear  clearly  undesirable  to  the  other. 

The  balance  of  political  power  in  the  United 
States  undoubtedly  rests  with  the  city-nation.  It  is 
true  that  In  the  national  Senate  the  country-nation 
Is  over-represened,  because  the  agricultural  and  min- 
ing states,  some  of  them  with  populations  smaller 
than  that  of  a  large  city,  have  equal  representation 
with  the  densely  populated  manufacturing  States — 
two  Senators  from  Utah  with  its  population  of  half 
a  million,  two  Senators  from  New  York  with  Its 
population  of  eleven  millions.  In  some  States, 
notably  in  New  York,  where  a  very  large  propor- 
tion of  the  population  Is  concentrated  in  one  or  In 
a  few  large  cities,  the  country  vote  carries  more 
than  Its  due  share  of  influence  over  legislation.  But 
these  conditions  are  more  than  offset  by  the  immense 
pressure  which  the  cities  are  able  to  exert  both  in 
National  and  in  State  Government, 


194  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

This  pressure  flows  through  many  channels,  some 
above  ground,  some  below.  It  Is  in  the  cities  that 
the  control  of  all  the  country's  money  and  credit  is 
concentrated,  that  the  higher  executive  staffs  of  all 
the  country's  great  industrial  and  commercial  cor- 
porations are  assembled,  that  organized  labor  main- 
tains its  headquarters,  that  the  newspapers  and 
magazines  are  published,  that  political  and  other 
conventions  are  held,  that  the  party  machines  ar^ 
range  their  plans.  To  whatever  extent  it  is  true 
that  **Behind  the  ostensible  Government  sits  en- 
throned an  invisible  Government  owing  no  allegiance 
and  acknowledging  no  responsibility  to  the  people," 
an  **unholy  alliance  between  corrupt  business  and 
corrupt  politics,''  *  the  throne-room  of  this  invis- 
ible government,  the  seat  of  this  alliance,  is  in  the 

cities. 

I  have  referred  to  the  difference  in  the  demands 
made  on  Government  by  the  country-nation  and  by 
the  city-nation.  It  may  be  summed  up  briefly  by 
saying  that  what  the  country-nation  has  demanded 
has  been  chiefly  in  the  nature  of  rights,  and  that 
what  the  city-nation  has  demanded  has  been  chiefly 
in  the  nature  of  services.  What  distinguishes  one 
set  of  these  demands  from  the  other  is  that  the  sat- 
isfaction of  the  former  calls  for  little  more  than  the 
exercise  of  an  enlightened  policy,  and  that  that  of 

•National  Platform  of  the  Progressive  Party,  1912. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  195 

the  latter  requires  in  addition  the  employment  of  an 
extremely  expert  administrative  technique. 

What  the  country-nation  demands  from  Govern- 
ment is  that  it  should  be  protected  against  exploita- 
tion by  the  railroads,  by  the  banks,  and  by  the  grain- 
elevator  interests.  So  far  as  these  demands  have 
not  been  satisfied  it  has  not  been  due  to  any  intrin- 
sic diflSculty  in  the  problem,  but  to  resistance  on  the 
part  of  the  interests  concerned,  that  is  to  say  on  the 
part  of  city-owned  interests  in  close  touch  with  leg- 
islatures. 

The  demands  of  the  city-nation  partake,  of 
course,  in  a  certain  measure  of  the  nature  of  a  plea* 
for  rights,  but  this  element  in  them  is  completely 
overshadowed  by  the  urgency  of  the  specific  require- 
ment of  services.  The  city-nation  may  be  restive 
under  the  increase  of  prices,  under  temporary  crises 
of  unemployment  or  of  labor  scarcity,  under  re- 
strictions regulative  of  its  social  habits.  These  mat- 
ters, however,  are  all,  except  in  extreme  and  un- 
usual circumstances,  questions  of  more  or  of  less, 
of  hoping  for  a  change,  of  awaiting  the  results  of 
investigation,  of  giving  the  politicians  another  chance 
to  redeem  their  promises,  of  getting  used  to  things. 
But  behind  all  this  is  the  irreducible  minimum  of 
what  Government  must  assure  to  the  city-nation  if  it 
is  not  to  face,  sooner  or  later,  revolt  or  revolution 
— food,  housing,  transportation,  light,  and  heat. 


196  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

It  is  in  regard  to  these  fundamental  necessities 
that  the  incapacity  of  Government  has  year  by  year 
been  more  forcibly  impressed  upon  the  city-nation. 
Incapacity  in  such  matters  can  go  very  far  before 
the  point  is  reached  where  by  going  a  little  further 
the  actual  existence  of  Government  is  threatened; 
but,  as  this  -point  is  gradually  approached,  the  grow- 
ing discontent  is  garnered  by  those — always  numer- 
ous in  large  cities — whose  aim  is  to  overthrow  the 
Government  and  to  reconstitute  the  State  in  another 
form. 

Now,  in  relation  to  the  fundamental  demands 
which  the  city-nation  makes  on  Government  the  past 
decade  has  furnished  the  city-nation,  in  constantly 
increasing  abundance,  valid  evidence  that  its  life 
lies  at  the  mercy  of  a  power  which  Government  is 
incapable  of  controlling,  the  power  of  organized  la- 
bor. The  delicately  articulated  system  which  sup- 
plies the  needs  of  the  city-nation  is  from  time  to 
time,  and  at  constantly  shortening  intervals,  thrown 
into  disorder  by  strikes  which  have  their  origin  in 
disputes  to  which  the  city  population  as  a  whole  is 
not  a  party.  The  alarm  which  these  recurrent  epi- 
sodes create  amongst  those  who  are  the  chief  suf- 
ferers from  them  is  not  mitigated  by  the  reflection 
that  none  of  them  has  as  yet  starved  a  city  to  death 
or  frozen  it  to  death.  On  the  contrary  the  fact  that 
§uch  a  catastrophe  has  been  averted  only  by  a  suc- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  197 

cession  of  panicky  surrenders  to  the  claims  of  or- 
ganized labor  is  forcing  the  city-nation  to  realize 
that  it  is  between  the  deep-sea  of  enslaving  conces- 
sion and  the  devil  of  suicidal  resistance. 

So  far  as  the  responsibility  of  Government  is  con- 
cerned for  what  has,  in  fact,  become  a  desperate 
situation,  the  issue  in  regard  to  the  justice  or  in- 
justice of  labor's  demands  is  only  one  phase. 

The  responsibility  of  Government  is  not  toward 
labor  or  toward  capital,  it  is  toward  the  com- 
munity. At  the  root  of  its  failure  is  its  re- 
fusal to  face  with  courage  and  frankness  an  ex- 
tremely important  and  extremely  disagreeable  task 
— that  of  drawing  a  dead-line  beyond  which  it  will 
not  permit  the  continuous  wrangle  between  capital 
and  labor  to  go  on  in  its  disruption  of  the  whole 
fabric  of  society.  This  is  a  very  grave  issue,  and  one 
which  cannot  be  settled  without  causing  a  great  deal 
of  bitter  resentment,  even  to  the  point  of  resistance 
to  the  authority  of  the  Government.  But  to  leave 
the  matter  unsettled,  because  of  its  gravity,  is  to 
court  an  issue  of  much  greater  gravity,  one  involv- 
ing much  more  serious  possibilities  to  the  State. 

The  politician's  attempt  to  conduct  Government 
on  the  dual  principle  of  gratifying  those  whom  you 
cannot  deceive,  and  of  deceiving  those  whom  you 
cannot  gratify,  has  reached  Its  term.  What  Govern- 
ment in  the  United  States  is  now  faced  with  is  the 


198  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

refusal  of  the  people — and  especially  of  the  city 
people,  who  are  most  hardly  pressed  and  are  in  the 
most  helpless  position — to  renew  the  promissory 
notes  which  the  politicians  have  been  delivering  to 
them  for  so  many  years.  That  these  notes  have 
been  inscribed  with  what  are,  in  effect,  promises  that 
the  battle  shall  go  to  the  weak  and  the  race  to  the 
slow,  proves  only  that  the  principal  asset  of  the 
politician  is  the  credulity  of  the  people.  But  a  time 
comes  when  credulity  itself  becomes  incredulous,  the 
day  when  postponement  has  rotted  the  last  grain 
of  nourishment  with  which  hope  is  wont  to  feed  ex- 
pectation. 

Events  within  the  past  few  years  bear  witness 
to  the  fact  that  we  are  in  the  dawn  of  such  a  day. 
The  rapid  spread  of  Socialism  and  of  Syndicalism 
at  one  end  of  the  political  front,  and  of  violations 
of  the  Constitutional  guaranties  at  the  other,  the 
lavish  bribes  with  which  Government  has  purchased 
a  precarious  peace  with  labor,  because  it  is  well  or- 
ganized and  well  led,  the  hollow  pretense  of  an  im- 
minent relief  for  its  distress,  with  which  the  tame 
majority  of  citizens  has  had  to  content  itself,  be- 
cause it  is  unorganized  and  leaderless — these  are 
unmistakable  signs  that  a  serious  crisis  is  at  hand. 

If  the  foregoing  portrayal  of  the  broad  features 
of  the  situation  appears  to  the  reader  to  be  painted 
from  too  dark  a  palette  and  with  too  coarse  a  brush, 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  199 

I  beg  him  to  ponder  the  following  extract  from  a 
brochure  issued  by  the  National  Association  for  Con- 
stitutional Government,  of  which  the  President  is 
the  Hon.  David  Jayne  Hill,  ex-Ambassador  to 
Germany,  ex-Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  and  a 
Member  of  the  Permanent  Administrative  Council 
of  The  Hague  Tribunal: — 

"Are  you  aware  that  there  is  an  active  organiza- 
tion, claiming  the  support  of  more  than  two  mil- 
lion adherents,  having  for  its  purpose  the  ^Gateway 
Amendment'  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States? 

"Do  you  realize  what  it  would  mean  to  destroy 
the  fundamental  law  and  its  guaranties  by  a  ma- 
jority merely  of  votes  cast  through  the  initiative  and 
referendum? 

"Can  you  contemplate  without  alarm  what  it 
would  mean  if  the  proposal  of  a  United  States  Sen- 
ator should  be  adopted  that  any  judge  who  pro- 
nounced any  act  of  legislation  ^unconstitutional* 
should  ipso  facto  be  compelled  to  vacate  his  office? 

"Would  you  have  any  faith  in  a  *due  process  of 
law,'  if  a  judge  were  subject  to  ^recall'  by  the  influ- 
ence of  a  faction  like  that  which  uses  its  political 
power  to  exempt  convicted  murderers  from  pun- 
ishment? 

"Are  you  aware  that  the  Prussian  bureaucratic 
system  of  government  is  rapidly  replacing  in  this 


200  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

country  the  *just  and  equal  laws'  of  our  fathers? 

"Do  you  realize  that  organized  societies  now  ex- 
isting in  this  country  with  principles  that  have  cre- 
ated anarchy  in  Russia  might  together  hold  a  nu- 
merical balance  of  power  in  a  presidential  election? 

**Have  you  observed  that  prominent  men  seeking 
election  to  high  office  in  this  country  do  not  hesitate 
to  cast  doubt  on  the  importance  and  validity  of  so- 
called  ^property  rights'  as  distinguished  from  Apo- 
litical rights'? 

**Are  you  aware  that  men  now  holding  office  dep- 
recate the  authority  of  the  Constitution  they  have 
solemnly  sworn  to  defend?" 

I  may  bring  to  the  support  of  the  forebodings 
which  these  questions  imply  a  quotation  from  an- 
other source.  President  Nicholas  Murray  Butler  in 
one  of  his  very  practical  and  stimulating  books  on 
Government  in  the  United  States  *  writes  as  fol- 
lows: "To  put  the  matter  bluntly,  there  is  under 
way  in  the  United  States  at  the  present  time  a  defi- 
nite and  determined  movement  to  change  our  rep- 
resentative republic  into  a  socialistic  democracy. 
That  attempt,  carried  on  by  men  of  conviction,  men 
of  patriotism,  as  they  conceive  patriotism,  is  the 
most  impressive  political  factor  in  our  public  life 
to-day.     In  my  judgment  it  transcends  all  possible 

♦  Why  Should  We  Change  Our  Form  of  Government^    Charles 
Scribner's  Sons,   1912. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  201 

differences  between  the  historic  parties;  it  takes 
precedence  of  all  problems  of  a  business,  a  financial, 
or  an  economic  character,  however  pressing;  for  it 
strikes  at  the  very  root  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States  and  at  the  principles  upon  which  that 
government  rests."  From  the  context  it  is  clear 
that  these  words  are  addressed  not  to  the  Socialist 
party  but  to  the  advocates  of  the  initiative  and  the 
referendum,  whose  aim  is  the  impossible  one  of 
making  a  workable  compromise  between  Representa- 
tive Republicanism  and  Direct  Democracy.  Of  the 
Socialist  aims  and  of  their  relation  to  the  present 
system  of  Government,  President  Butler  gives  his 
general  view  in  a  succinct  and  forcible  passage.  **As 
an  aspiration,"  he  says,  in  the  work  from  which  I 
have  just  quoted,  "socialism  is  in  large  measure  com- 
mendable, though  vague.  As  a  political  program 
it  asks  us  to  take  the  ship  of  state  out  on  to  a  fathom- 
less sea  without  chart  or  compass  in  a  perpetual  fog. 
If  every  elected  and  appointed  officer  of  an  Amer- 
ican commonwealth  were  tomorrow  to  declare  him- 
self an  adherent  of  the  socialist  program,  neither  he 
nor  all  his  colleagues  together  could  do  one  single 
thing  to  substitute  the  collectivist's  state  for  our 
representative  democracy,  save  through  revolution 
and  the  subversion  of  the  constitutional  principles  on 
which  our  civilization  and  our  government  rest.  It 
IS  worth  while  remembering  this  fundamental  fact. 


)  . 


vl 

hi 

i 


202  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

There  is  no  possible  way  in  which  a  socialistic  state 
can  be  developed  out  of  our  representative  Amer- 
ican democracy/* 

Broadly  speaking,  the  growing  discontent  with 
Government  is  of  two  distinct  kinds.  Each  has  its 
origin,  of  course,  in  dissatisfaction  with  the  results 
of  Government,  but  one  is  formulated  in  a  purpose 
to  change  the  fundamental  principles  on  which  Gov- 
ernment rests,  the  other  in  a  purpose  to  change  the 
methods  by  which  Government  is  conducted;  the  for- 
mer is  essentially  a  protest  by  the  city-nation,  and 
its  demands  are  embodied  in  the  Socialist  program, 
the  latter  is  a  protest  by  the  country-nation,  and  its 
conception  of  the  best  remedy  for  its  grievances  is 
the  destruction  of  the  representative  principle  in 
Government  and  the  resort  to  the  direct  rule  of  the 
people. 

It  would  carry  me  too  far  afield  from  my  present 
object  if  I  were  to  embark  upon  a  discussion  of  So- 
cialism. But  the  word  "Socialism'* — in  common 
with  most  political  terms,  such  as  government,  col- 
ony, state,  republic,  democracy,  the  people,  the  will 
of  the  people,  and  so  on — means  one  thing  to  one 
person,  and  something  quite  different  to  another; 
and  I  may,  therefore,  explain  that  when  I  speak 
of  Socialism  I  do  not  refer  to  that  moderate  wing 
which  is  the  neighbor  of  the  social  reformers,  but 
of  that  extreme  wing  which  is  the  neighbor  of  the 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  203 

Bolshevists;  I  do  not  speak  of  those  who  advocate 
the  public  ownership  and  operation  of  public  utili- 
ties, old-age  pensions,  and  unemployment  insur- 
ance, but  of  those  who  advocate  the  total  overthrow 
of  the  so-called  capitalist  system  and  the  erection  in 
its  place  of  a  State  based  upon  a  social  and  not  upon 
a  political  organization. 

Threatened  on  its  front  by  the  Socialists  and  by 
those  who  lie  beyond  the  extreme  left  of  Socialism, 
and  on  its  flank  by  the  Direct  Democrats,  Repre- 
sentative     Republicanism     appears    to    be     almost 
wholly  unconscious  of  an  a.ttack  which  has  been  go- 
ing  on  for  many  years  in  the  rear  of  its  position. 
This  assault  has  taken  the  form  of  a  slow  and  in- 
sidious undermining  of  the  representative  principle 
in  American  Government.    It  is  hardly  too  much  to 
say  that  the  representative  principle  has  already  dis- 
appeared from  American  political  practice,  and  that 
all  that  remains  of  it  is  the  mechanism  through  which 
it  used  to  function. 

The  official  machinery  of  politics  remains  to  the 
eye  substantially  what  it  was  a  hundred  years  ago 
—an  arrangement  by  which  voters  elected  legisla- 
tors  *— but  to  the  reason  its  appearance  is  entirely 
changed,  because  its  product  is  no  longer  representa- 
tives,  but  delegates. 

•The  change  to  the  direct  election  of  Senators  has,  of  course, 
enlarged  the  political  area  in  which  the  prinaple  of  popular  elec- 
tioo  operates. 


204  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

In  view  of  the  complete  opposition  which  exists 
between  the  conception  of  Government  by  delega- 
tion and  that  of  Government  by  representation,  it 
is  remarkable  that  the  change  from  the  one  to  the 
other  which  has  undoubtedly  occurred  in  the  United 
States  should  have  attracted  so  little  attention,  even 
among  serious  writers  on  Government.  I  cannot 
profess  to  be  acquainted  with  more  than  a  small 
proportion  of  what  has  been  written  on  Government 
during  the  past  twenty  years;  but  I  have  read  a 
good  deal  on  that  subject,  and  in  what  I  have  read 
I  have  not  found  anywhere  a  thorough,  much  less 
an  exhaustive  discussion  of  the  difference  between 
delegation  and  representation  in  Government.  Yet 
the  difference  between  these  two  principles  is  the 
measure  of  the  practical  difference  between  Pure 
Democracy  and  Representative  Republicanism. 

The  distinguishing  feature  of  Pure  Democracy 
is  that  the  mass  of  the  people  declare  their  will,  and 
that  that  will  is  the  law.  The  authority  to  execute 
this  will  is  delegated  to  officials  who  have  no  dis- 
cretionary power;  they  are  the  will  of  the  majority 
in  its  executive  form.  That  the  people  should  ac- 
tually assemble  in  one  place  at  one  time  so  that  the 
majority-will  may  be  determined  coram  populo  is 
not  the  fundamental  characteristic  of  Pure  Democ- 
racy; that  basic  principle  is  that  the  people  determine 
directly  what  they  want  done  and  that  those  to  whom 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  205 

the  executive  power  is  delegated  have  nothing  to 
do  with  determining  what  ought  to  be  done. 

In  modern  times  the  assembling  of  the  people  is 
accomplished  through  the  ballot,  and  the  precise 
point  where  the  separation  between  representation 
and  delegation  takes  place  is  when  the  successful 
candidate  takes  his  seat  in  the  legislature.  He  is 
an  elected  representative;  what  does  he  "represent"? 
Does  he  represent  that  portion  of  the  people  which 
elected  him?  Does  he  represent  the  general  inter- 
est of  his  electoral  district?  Does  he  represent,  on 
behalf  of  his  district,  the  general  interest  of  the 
larger  unit  of  which  his  district  is  a  small  part — • 
the  interest  of  the  State,  of  the  Nation?  Does  he 
represent  the  interest  of  his  party?  Does  he  rep- 
resent the  interest  of  that  small  section  of  his  party 
which  controls  the  party  machine?  If  he  repre- 
sents one  or  several  of  these  interests,  what  is  the 
nature  of  his  representative  function? 

Each  of -these  questions  is  of  great  importance; 
but  it  is  from  the  answer  to  the  last  one  alone  that 
we  can  determine  whether  the  legislator  is,  in  fact, 
a  representative  or  a  delegate. 

For  the  purpose  of  making  the  point  at  issue  as 
clear  as  possible,  I  will  assume,  for  t?he  moment,  that 
the  legislator  represents  that  portion  of  the  people 
which  elected  him.  What,  then,  is  his  relation  to 
his  electors?     If  he  is  to  go  to  the  legislature  and 


2o6  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

vote  as  his  electors  instruct  him,  from  time  to  time, 
as  legislative  proposals  come  to  the  vote,  he  is  not 
a  representative;  he  is  a  delegate.  If  this  theory 
of  'his  duty  is  allowed  to  prevail,  the  system  is  not 
one  of  Representative  Republicanism,  but  of  Pure 
Democracy.  It  is  true  that  after  election  day  the 
electors  do  not  assemble  in  one  place  and  publicly 
instruct  their  delegate;  but  they  visit  him,  write  to 
him,  telegraph  to  him,  telephone  to  him,  or  send  a 
deputation  to  him;  and  these  processes  constitute 
assemblage  and  instruction,  for  all  practical  pur- 
poses. 

The  difference  between  this  system  and  that  of 
true  representation  is  stated  with  admirable  pre- 
cision by  Madison,  in  No.  X  of   The  Federalist. 
After  describing  Pure  Democracy  as  a  system  in 
which  the  citizens  assemble  and  undertake  the  Gov- 
ernment in  person,  and  a  Republic  as  one  in  which 
the  scheme  of  representation  exists,  he  makes  very 
clear  the  crucial  distinction  between  the  two  plans. 
The  effect  of  the  latter  form  of  procedure  is  "to 
refine  and  enlarge  the  public  views,  by  passing  them 
through  the  medium  of  a  chosen  body  of  citizens, 
whose  wisdom  may  best  discern  the  true  interest  of 
their  country,  and  whose  patriotism  and  love  of  jus- 
tice will  be  least  likely  to  sacrifice  k  to  temporary 
or  partial  considerations."     And  a  few  lines  fur- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  207 

ther  on  he  describes  the  representatives  as  "guardi- 
ans of  the  public  weal.'' 

The  meaning  of  this  is  unmistakable.  There  are 
two  ways  of  gathering  the  opinion  which  Is  to  be 
translated  Into  legislation;  one  is  to  gather  it  di- 
rectly from  the  people,  the  other  to  gather  It  from 
the  elected  guardians  of  the  public  weal,  who  will 
take  the  rough  and  narrow  view  of  the  general  pub- 
lic, refine  and  enlarge  it,  and,  by  bringing  their  wis- 
dom to  bear  upon  It,  will  make  it  conform  to  the 
true  interest  of  the  country  instead  of  to  what  a 
less  wise  and  less  informed  body  of  people  may  deem 
that  interest  to  be.  The  true  function  of  the  rep- 
resentative is,  therefore,  not  to  represent  in  the  leg- 
islature the  opinions  of  his  electors  on  public  affairs, 
but  in  the  legislature  to  represent  his  electors  in  the 
matter  of  forming  and  in  acting  upon  opinions  on 
public  affairs.  In  other  words  what  the  ballot  is 
intended  for  is  not  to  give  the  voter  an  opportunity 
of  enforcing  his  individual  opinion  of  what  public 
policy  should  be — except  in  regard  to  the  broadest 
general  Issues — but  an  opportunity  to  declare  which 
of  two  or  of  several  men  he  wishes  to  make  into  a 
"guardian  of  the  public  weal." 

The  question  of  whether  an  elected  legislator 
should,  under  a  representative  system,  vote  accord- 
ing to  his  own  judgment  or  according  to  the  wishes 


I  i 


206  Pemocracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

vote  as  his  electors  instruct  him,  from  time  to  time, 
as  legislative  proposals  come  to  the  vote,  he  is  not 
a  representative;  he  is  a  delegate.  If  this  theory 
of  'his  duty  is  allowed  to  prevail,  the  system  is  not 
one  of  Representative  Republicanism,  but  of  Pure 
Democracy.  It  is  true  that  after  election  day  the 
electors  do  not  assemble  in  one  place  and  publicly 
instruct  their  delegate ;  but  they  visit  him,  write  to 
him,  telegraph  to  him,  telephone  to  him,  or  send  a 
deputation  to  him;  and  these  processes  constitute 
assemblage  and  instruction,   for  all  practical  pur- 

poses. 

The  difference  between  this  system  and  that  of 
true  representation  is  stated  with  admirable  pre- 
cision by  Madison,  in  No.  X  of  The  Federalisd. 
After  describing  Pure  Democracy  as  a  system  in 
which  the  citizens  assemble  and  undertake  the  Gov- 
ernment in  person,  and  a  Republic  as  one  in  which 
the  scheme  of  representation  exists,  he  makes  very 
clear  the  crucial  distinction  between  the  two  plans. 
The  effect  of  the  latter  form  of  procedure  is  "to 
refine  and  enlarge  the  public  views,  by  passing  them 
through  the  medium  of  a  chosen  body  of  citizens, 
whose  wisdom  may  best  discern  the  true  interest  of 
their  country,  and  whose  patriotism  and  love  of  jus- 
tice will  be  least  likely  to  sacrifice  14:  to  temporary 
or  partial  considerations.'*     And  a  few  lines  fur- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  207 

ther  on  he  describes  the  representatives  as  "guardi- 
ans of  the  public  weal." 

The  meaning  of  this  is  unmistakable.  There  are 
two  ways  of  gathering  the  opinion  which  Is  to  be 
translated  into  legislation;  one  is  to  gather  it  di- 
rectly from  the  people,  the  other  to  gather  it  from 
the  elected  guardians  of  the  public  weal,  who  will 
take  the  rough  and  narrow  view  of  the  general  pub- 
lic, refine  and  enlarge  it,  and,  by  bringing  their  wis- 
dom to  bear  upon  it,  will  make  it  conform  to  the 
true  interest  of  the  country  instead  of  to  what  a 
less  wise  and  less  informed  body  of  people  may  deem 
that  interest  to  be.  The  true  function  of  the  rep- 
resentative is,  therefore,  not  to  represent  in  the  leg- 
islature the  opinions  of  his  electors  on  public  affairs, 
but  in  the  legislature  to  represent  his  electors  in  the 
matter  of  forming  and  in  acting  upon  opinions  on 
public  affairs.  In  other  words  what  the  ballot  is 
intended  for  is  not  to  give  the  voter  an  opportunity 
of  enforcing  his  individual  opinion  of  what  public 
policy  should  be — except  in  regard  to  the  broadest 
general  Issues — but  an  opportunity  to  declare  which 
of  two  or  of  several  men  he  wishes  to  make  into  a 
"guardian  of  the  public  weal.'' 

The  question  of  whether  an  elected  legislator 
should,  under  a  representative  system,  vote  accord- 
ing to  his  own  judgment  or  according  to  the  wishes 


2o8  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

of  those  who  elect  him  has  attracted  much  more  at- 
tention  in  Europe  than  it  has  in  the  United  States. 
In  1832,  during  the  course  of  the  debate  m  the 
House  of  Commons  on  the  Reform  Bill,  Sir  Robert 
Inglis  said:    *This  house  is  not  a  collection  of  depu- 
ties, as  the  States-General  of  Holland  and  as  the 
assemblies  in  some  other  countries  are.     We  are 
not  sent  here  day  by  day  to  represent  the  opmions 
of  our  constituents.     Their  local  rights,  their  mu- 
nicipal  privileges  we   are  bound  to  protect;  their 
general  interests  we   are  bound  to  consult  at   all 
times;  but  not  their  will,  unless  it  shall  coincide  with 
our  own  deliberate  sense  of  right." 

The  above  reference  to  the  States-General  of  Hol- 
land has  no  force  today.  Under  the  present  con- 
stitution  of  the  Netherlands,  the  members  of  the 
two  Chambers  are  required  to  "vote  without  in- 
structions  from  or  conference  with  those  who  elect 

them." 

Sir  Robert  Inglis  may  well  have  had  in  mind  at 
the  time  he  spoke,  Burke's  famous  declaration  to 
the  sheriffs  of  Bristol:  "It  ought  to  be  the  happi- 
ness  and  glory  of  a  representative  to  live  in  the 
strictest  union,  the  closest  correspondence,  and  the 
most  unreserved  communication  with  his  constitu- 
ents. Their  wishes  ought  to  have  great  weight  with 
him;  their  opinions  high  respect;  their  business  un- 
remitted attention.  ...  But  his  unbiased  opinion, 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  209 

his  mature  judgment,  his  enlightened  conscience,  he 
ought  not  to  sacrifice  to  you,  to  any  man,  or  to  any 
set  of  men  living.  .  .  .  Your  representative  owes 
you  not  his  industry  only,  but  his  judgment;  and  he 
betrays  instead  of  serving  you,  if  he  sacrifices  it  to 
your  opinion.  .  .  .  Parliament  is  not  a  congress  of 
ambassadors  from  different  and  hostile  interests.  It 
is  a  deliberative  assembly  of  one  nation  with  one 
interest,  that  of  the  whole,  where  not  local  purposes 
nor  local  prejudices  ought  to  guide,  but  the  general 
good.  .  .  .  You  chose  a  member,  indeed,  but  when 
you  have  chosen  him  he  is  not  a  member  of  Bristol 
but  he  is  a  member  of  Parliamf^nt.'' 

Lord  Macaulay's  views  on  representative  govern- 
ment I  have  already  quoted  (p.  45)-  That  these 
views  have  not  remained  in  force  in  England,  if  in- 
deed they  ever  exerted  a  general  influence  there,  may 
be  gathered  from  a  very  striking  article  published 
anonymously  in  the  National  Review  for  October, 
1883,  under  the  suggestive  caption,  "Arc  Parlia- 
mentary Institutions  in  Danger?"  After  pointing 
out  that  although  in  the  old  un-reformed  Parlia- 
ment, members  had  frequently  obtained  their  seats 
by  corrupt  methods,  yet,  once  they  were  inside  the 
house,  they  were  free  to  act  upon  their  independent 
judgment  of  what  the  national  interest  demanded  of 
them  as  legislators,  the  writer  makes  the  important 
distinction  that  the  modern  practice  of  securing  elec- 


2IO  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

tlon  by  making  elaborate  preelection  promises  for 
the  purpose  of  catching  votes,  involved  a  candidate 
In  wholesale  hypocrisy  and  dissimulation,  and  de- 
prived him  of  all  independence  after  he  had  taken 

his  seat. 

"Political  corruption  and  the  demoralization  of 
the  individual  political  conscience  thus  spread  and 
spread,  and  become  universal.     Statesmen  in  high 
places,  casting  about  -them  for  majorities  in  Par- 
liament, set  the  example;  and  candidates,  casting 
about  them  for  majorities  in  the  constituencies,  fol- 
low it.     Thus  gradually  a  sort  of  silent  assumption 
is  established  that  it  is  not  the  business  of  a  can- 
didate  to  be  independent  and  upright,  much  less  in- 
tractable in  his^opinions,  but  rather  to  be  pliant  and 
docile.     Yet  unless  honesty  be  but  a  phantasm,  and 
morality  a  phrase,  a  community  in  which  politicians 
talk  of  their  opinions  when  they  mean  the  opinions, 
or  the  supposed  opinions,  of  other  people,  must  be 
experiencing  a  process  of  degradation.     It  is  idle, 
however,  to  suppose  that  the  character  of  the  per- 
sons who  constitute  the  House  of  Commons  can 
be  lowered  without  the  House  itself  suffering  in 
public  estimation.     It  is  in  accordance  with  a  well- 
known  trait  in  human  nature  that  people  despise 
those  whom  they  have  themselves  degraded;  and 
the  very  constituencies  that  begin  by  insisting  that 
their  representatives  shall  flatter  and  obey  them,  end 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  211 

by  feeling  for  their  members  that  contempt  which 
tyrants  invariably  reserve  for  sycophants." 

In  discussing  this  matter,  as  it  applies  to  Amer- 
ican politics,  I  have  assumed  that  the  legislator 
**represents*'  those  who  elected  fiim.  If,  however, 
we  are  disposed  to  consider  that  he  "represents'*  in 
fact  some  other  body — his  party,  or  the  machine 
through  which  his  party  operates,  or  the  capitalists, 
or  the  labor  unions,  or  the  prohibitionists,  or  the 
liquor  interests — the  situation  is  not  improved  by 
the  new  assumption.  If  a  man  goes  to  a  legisla- 
ture to  do  what  he  is  told,  it  makes  little  difference 
whom  he  obeys;  he  is  no  longer  a  representative, 
but  a  delegate,  and  the  system  ceases  to  be  one  of 
Representative  Republicanism. 

The  question  is  not  one  of  the  corruption  of  leg- 
islators, as  the  term  corruption  is  usually  employed. 
A  corrupt  man  will  betray  his  responsibility  whether 
he  be  a  representative  or  a  delegate.  Let  us  put 
the  matter  at  its  best,  and  suppose  that  every  one 
who  approaches  a  legislator  with  a  specific  demand 
that  he  vote  for  or  against  a  measure  is  moved  by 
a  sincere  conviction  that  he  is  thereby  serving  the 
best  interest  of  the  public,  the  demand  is,  none  the 
less,  inconsistent  with  the  pure  spirit  of  Representa- 
tive Government. 

This  is  not,  of  course,  the  form  which  pressure 
upon  a  legislator  usually  assumes.     It  is  more  often 


212  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

applied  through  the  agency  of  the  "lobby,"  the 
propaganda,  or  the  massed  attack  by  letter  or  tele- 
gram; and  what  lies  behind  it  is  not  a  promise  of 
reward  if  the  legislator  yields  but  of  revenge  if  he 
remains  obdurate.  The  extent  to  which  legislators 
have  been  openly  threatened  w.ith  reprisal  by  the 
organizations  supporting  woman's  suffrage,  and  by 
the  Anti-Saloon  League,  to  select  two  recent  exam- 
ples, and  the  docility  with  which  popular  opinion 
has  accepted  Organized  Threat  as  a  sort  of  fifth 
estate  in  Government  show  how  far  we  have  traveled 
on  the  road  toward  Direct  Democracy. 

So  far  as  the  authority  of  the  voter  is  exercised 
in  any  manner  and  in  any  degree  over  the  man  he 
has  elected — save  in  the  single  manner  and  in  the 
single  degree  of  voting  against  him  and  of  inducing 
others  to  vote  against  him  when  he  seeks  reelection, 
just  so  far  is  the  principle  of  representation  abro- 
gated. The  periodical  election  is,  under  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  the  only  legitimate 
occasion  and  the  only  legitimate  method  of  referring 
the  conduct  of  public  affairs  directly  to  the  voter. 
This  power  is,  and  was  intended  to  be,  a  checking 
power,  not  a  power  of  initiation;  and  as  a  checking 
power  it  was  not  one  to  be  held  perpetually  over  the 
head  of  a  legislator  in  the  form  of  a  referendum 
on  petition,  but  one  to  be  exercised  at  stated  inter- 
vals, when  the  voter,  weighing  the  conduct  of  a 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  213 

legislator,  not  with  reference  to  his  vote  on  a  single 
measure  but  In  regard  to  his  general  record,  decides 
to  renew  the  lease  of  his  confidence  or  to  termi- 
nate it. 

The  gradual  disappearance  of  Representative 
Government  in  the  United  States  has  not  been  due  to 
the  one  cause  of  a  tacit  conversion  of  representatives 
into  delegates;  two  other  influences  have  been  at 
work,  one  centered  in  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum, 
and  the  Recall,  the  other  in  Party  Politics.  The 
former  are  now  legally  grafted  onto  the  stem  of 
Republicanism,  through  Constitutional  Amendments 
in  State  Constitutions,  the  latter  is  an  extra-consti- 
tutional system  which  has  grown  to  such  dimensions 
and  has  developed  a  technique  so  dexterous  that  it 
has  ceased  to  be,  what  it  was  intended  to  be,  the 
servant  of  Government,  and  has  become  its  master. 

The  I.  R.  R. — thus,  the  Initiative,  the  Referen- 
dum, and  the  Recall,  for  sake  of  brevity — are  alike, 
though  in  varying  degrees,  subversive  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  representation;  and  each  can  justify  itself 
only  by  employing  the  very  arguments  by  which 
alone  Direct  Democracy  can  be  defended,  and  by 
denying  the  force  of  every  argument  advanced  in 
favor  of  Representative  Republicanism. 

I  am  not  concerned  here  In  any  way  with  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  we  can  get  better  Government  under 
the  I.  R.  R.  than  we  get  at  present,  or  a  Government 


,:t 


214  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

more  responsive  to  the  popular  will,  or  a  more  hon- 
est Government,  or  a  more  stable  Government;  what 
I  wish  to  lay  stress  upon  is  that  whatever  other  kind 
of  Government  you  can  get  out  of  the  I.  R.  R.  you 
cannot  possibly  get  Representative  Republix:an  Gov- 
ernment, because  they  are -based  upon  conceptions  of 
politics  which  are  not  merely  different  from  each 
other  but  the  exact  opposites  of  each  other. 

The  I.  R.  R.  rest  fundamentally  upon  two  ideas, 
one  that  the  body  of  voters  is  more  capable  than 
any  specially  selected  individuals  of  understanding 
questions  of  public  policy,  the  -other  that  the  duty 
of  Government  is  to  put  into  effect  the  will  of  the 
voters.     Representative  Government,  on  the  other 
hand,  rests  fundamentally  upon  ideas  antipodal  to 
these,  namely  that  the  body  of  voters  cannot  pos- 
sess  either  the  special  knowledge  or  the  special  kind 
of  intelligence  required  for  the  wise  determination 
of  public  policy,  that  this  task  should,  therefore,  be 
performed  by  a  small  number  of  persons,  chosen  by 
the  voters  for  their  special  fitness  for  that  purpose, 
and  that  the  duty  of  Government  is  to  put  in  effect 
the  deliberate  judgment  of  these  selected  individ- 
uals. 

A  great  deal  of  support  has  been  given  to  the 
I.  R.  R.  because  of  the  deep  and  widespread  distrust 
of  the  kind  of  legislator  produced  by  the  present 
system;  but  those  who  turn  for  relief  to  the  1.  R.  R. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  215 

on  this  account  fail  to  distinguish  between  the  kind 
of  legislator  which  is  produced  by  the  •representa- 
tive system  and  the  kind  which  is  produced  by  its 
debauchment. 

Some  plausibility  attaches  to  the  claim  that  the 
I.  R.  R.  are  only  putting  into  practice  what  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  representative  system  uphold  in  the- 
ory, since  the  latter  constantly  employ  the  phrase 
**the  will  of  the  people"  to  define  the  proper  inspira- 
tion of  Government.  About  this  two  things  may  be 
said;  one  that  this  phrase  is  used  frequently  by 
politicians  and  rarely  by  statesmen,  the  other  that 
if  any  one  employs  it  in  any  other 'sense  than  that 
the  "will  of  the  people''  begins  and  ends,  so  far  as 
its  direct  function  in  politics  is  concerned,  with  the 
choice  of  representatives,  his  place  is  not  with  the 
Constitutional  Republicans  but  with  the  supporters 
of  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum,  and  the  Recall. 

There  is,  in  fact,  no  question  connected  with  Gov- 
ernment which  is  in  more  urgent  need  of  settlement 
than  this:  Is  the  legislative  function  of  Government 
intended  to  give  effect  to  the  zmll  of  the  people,  or 
to  the  judgment  of  the  people's  representatives? 

The  whole  problem  of  political  agency  centers 
around  this  issue;  and  it  Is  one  which  cannot  be  left 
much  longer  where  it  now  is,  in  the  field  of  individ- 
ual inference,  without  producing  the  most  serious 
consequences.     If  the  for^mer  interpretation  is  defi- 


iii 


M.i 


2i6  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

nitely  adopted,  we  should  frankly  recognize  that 
what  we  want  is  Direct  Democracy,  and  we  should 
take  the  necessary  steps  to  give  that  plan  a  full  Con- 
stitutional status;  if  the  latter  interpretation  is  ac- 
cepted we  should  at  once  set  about  the  task  of  re- 
establishing  and  of  placing  on  an  unshakable  foun- 
dation the  plan  of  Representative  Republicanism. 
At  the  present  time  we  have  neither  one  plan  nor  the 
other,  but  a  plan  which  deprives  us  of  whatever 
good  may  be  found  in  each. 

Direct  Democracy  has,   from  the  standpoint  of 
the  people,  one  great  advantage;  it  is  actually  the 
people's  Government.     It  never  has  produced,  and 
it  never  can  produce,   *'good''  Government   for  a 
large    society.     The    amount    of    sentiment    which 
exists  in  the  world  in  favor  of  ^'good"  Government 
is,  however,  absurdly  exaggerated  by  those  to  whom 
it  seems  a  most  desirable  object.     No  one  who  has 
made  an  extended  study  of  comparative  Government 
is  blind  to  the  fact  that  most  people  in  the  world 
prefer  the  worst  kind  of  bad  Government,  if  it  is 
self-government,  to  the  best  kind  of  good  Govern- 
ment, if  it  is  imposed  upon  them  from  outside. 

This  is  but  one  phase  of  a  general  condition, 
namely  that  there  is  nothing  out  of  which  people  get 
more  satisfaction  than  they  do  out  of  giving  expres- 
sion  to  their  will,  that  submission  to  authority,  as 
such,  however  beneficent  the  results  may  be,  is  re- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  217 

pugnant  to  one  of  the  most  profound  of  human 
emotions,  the  love  of  liberty.  All  attempts  to  In- 
terpret liberty  in  terms  of  reason  are  wholly  futile 
so  far  as  the  mass  of  people  Is  concerned.  Lib- 
erty, to  the  bulk  of  mankind  *  means  only  one  thing, 
the  power  to  do  what  you  want  to.  Now,  Direct 
Democracy  gives,  and  is  intended  to  give,  to  every 
one  the  opportunity  of  gratifying  this  passion  in 
the  field  of  politics,  and  it  is  from  this  element  in 
It  and  not  from  any  real  conviction  among  the 
masses  that  it  will  Improve  Government,  that  all 
movements  In  favor  of  direct  action  derive  their 
strength. 

Representative  Republicanism  also  has  one  out- 
standing advantage,  namely,  that,  if  it  is  faithfully 
practiced,  it  will  yield  as  great  an  amount  of  good 
Government  as  any  people  will  endure. 

The  practice  Into  which  we  have  now  fallen,  which 
may  be  described  as  one  of  trying  to  reconcile  two 
Irreconcilable  elements — the  will  of  the  many  and 
the  judgment  of  the  few — gives  us  neither  the  un- 
restricted freedom  we  would  secure  under  one  sys- 
tem nor  the  efficient  administration  of  public  af- 

*  I  say  "the  bulk  of  mankind,"  because  I  am  addressing  my 
general  argument  to  conditions  in  countries  inhabited  chiefly  by 
white  people.  The  whole  of  this  paragraph  is  subject  to  the 
qualification  that  in  the  Hindu  world,  in  most  of  the  Buddhist 
world,  and  among  non-Mohammedan  Africans,  the  desire  to 
gratify  the  will  plays  a  much  less  important  part  than  it  does 
with  us. 


21 8  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

fairs  which  we  would  secure  under  the  other.  It  is 
this  conflict  between  two  opposing  principles  in  Gov- 
ernment which  divides  the  sincere  advocates  of  bet- 
ter Government  into  two  camps,  one  believing  that 
more,  the  other  that  less  power  in  the  hands  of  the 
people  is  the  true  path  of  betterment. 

The  existence  of  a  real  dividing  line  of  opinion 
on  this  question  is  proved  by  the  remedies  for  our 
present  plight  which  are  found  on  either  side  of  it. 
Those  who  believe  that  the  salvation  of  the  country 
lies  in  *^making  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  real 
instead  of  nominal  and  fictitious"  *  support  the  long 
ballot,  nomination  through  primaries,  the  Initiative, 
the  Referendum,  and  the  Recall;  those  who  wish  to 
confine  the  direct  political  action  of  the  people  within 
a  narrower  field  support  the  short  ballot,  the  nomi- 
nating  convention,  the  commission  form  of  city  Gov- 
ernment,  and  the  extension  of  civil-service  tenure 

for  officials. 

I  turn  now  to  the  influence  exerted  by  the  Party 
System  on  the  representative  principle  in  Govern- 
ment.  It  may  be  said  of  the  Party  System,  what 
has  been  said  of  Representative  Republicanism,  that 
what  we  now  observe  its  condition  to  be  is  the  con- 
sequence of  its  debauchment  and  not  of  its  faithful 

application. 

The  organization  of  the  voters  on  the  basis  of 

•Theodore  Roosevelt  in  the  Hibbert  Journal,  Vol.  XII,  ^^l^'^^^ 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  219 

Party  is  not  only  consistent  with  Representative  Gov- 
ernment, it  is  even  an  essential  part  of  it.  Like 
every  other  political  device,  however,  it  is  liable 
to  abuse  by  those  who  control  it;  and  whether  its 
power  is  exerted  for  good  or  for  evil  in  Government 
depends  not  upon  its  formal  elements  but  upon  the 
human  equation. 

In  the  opinion  of  many  competent  judges  it  is 
wholly  impracticable  to  conduct  a  modern  Govern- 
ment of  the  "popular*'  type  unless  there  are  at  least 
two  well-organized  political  parties  in  the  State. 
This  view  rests  upon  a  very  practical  consideration. 
The  number  of  matters  which  arise  in  the  business 
of  Government  is  very  great.  They  range  all  the 
way  from  broad  issues,  such  as  protection  or  free- 
trade,  open  or  restricted  immigration,  regulated  or 
free  industry,  private  or  public  ownership  of  public 
utilities,  to  highly  specialized  questions  such  as  those 
having  to  do  with  the  regulation  of  banking  and  in- 
surance, the  law  of  incorporation,  revenue  legisla- 
tion, pure  food  laws,  and  so  on. 

It  is  the  task  of  legislators  to  deal  with  these 
matters,  and  it  is  the  task  of  the  voters  to  elect  the 
legislators.  But  it  is  only  with  reference  to  a  very 
small  proportion  of  all  legislation  that  the  voter  has 
a  definite  opinion,  and  upon  a  still  smaller  propor- 
tion any  reasoned  judgment.  If,  then,  the  voter 
— as  a  voter,  and  not  as  a  citizen  having  some  per- 


220  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

sonal  advantage  at  heart— Is  to  be  drawn  from  his 
private  affairs  in  order  to  play  his  part  in  public 
affairs,  his  interest  must  be  aroused,  his  energy  stim- 
ulated, his  combative  instinct  brought  into  play.    To 
do  this  is  the  legitimate  concern  of  Party.     When 
there  is  before  the  public  a  major  issue,  or  several 
major  issues,  on  which  opinion  is  divided,  the  work 
of  the  Party  organization  presents  no  great  diffi- 
culties to  those  who  have  mastered  the  technique  of 
political  management;  and  there  is  nothing  blame- 
worthy   In    the    open    activities    of    an    orator    or 
pamphleteer  who  seeks  to  rally  the  farmers  around 
the  standard  of  **a  tariff  for  revenue  only,^'  or  the 
mechanics  around  that  of  ^'protection  for  our  manu- 
facturing industries;*     If  the  work  of  Party  organ- 
izations was  confined  to  consolidating  the  voters  into 
two  groups  on  opposite  sides  of  broad  questions  of 
policy  it  would  be  performing  a  useful  function  and 
one  which  all  but  the  captious  would  recognize  to 
be  both  useful  and  innocent. 

This  is,  substantially,  the  picture  of  the  Party 
System  which  its  most  enthusiastic  admirers  paint 
for  us;  but  its  colors  are  not  copied  from  nature, 
they  are  those  which  appear  in  the  mirror  of  King 
Ryence,  the  mirror  which  reflect-s  objects  not  as 
they  are  but  as  the  gazer  wishes  to  see  them. 

If  there  are  great  issues  on  which  parties  can  be 
clearly  divided,  well  and  good;  but  if  not,  then  the 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  221 

parties  must  create  issues  and  make  them  appear 
great,  for  the  instinct  of  self-preservation  is  as 
strong  In  parties  as  it  is  in  individuals.  Since  it  is 
upon  political  dissension  that  parties  exist  they  are 
under  constant  temptation  to  concentrate  their  ef- 
forts upon  controversial  subjects  to  the  exclusion 
of  other  subjects,  of  great  interest  to  the  public 
welfare,  which  lack  any  element  around  which  con- 
troversy can  be  easily  excited.  Thus,  under  the 
Party  System,  not  only  is  the  area  of  possible  agree- 
ment neglected  by  the  politicians  and  that  of  cer- 
tain disagreement  assiduously  exploited,  but  every 
effort  is  employed  to  create  disagreement  whenever 
agreement  seems  possible.  One  consequence  of  this 
is  that  the  conflict  of  Party,  instead  of  being  con- 
fined to  broad  questions  of  general  polity,  is  carried 
on  over  the  whole  field  of  legislation,  and  intrudes, 
therefore,  upon  that  extremely  wide  area  of  Govern- 
ment which,  properly  viewed.  Is  not  in  the  domain  of 
policy  but  In  that  of  administrajtion. 

These  characteristics  of  the  Party  System  affect 
adversely  the  representative  element  in  Government, 
because  the  legislator,  who  has  been  nominated  and 
elected  through  the  -efforts  of  the  Party  organiza- 
tion. Is  constrained  to  regard  the  success  of  his 
Party  as  something  coincident  with  the  public  wel- 
fare; and,  holding  that  opinion,  he  can  hardly  avoid 
transferring  his  allegiance  from  the  community  he 


222  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

is  supposed  to  represent  to  the  machine  which  ac- 
tually made  him  a  representative. 

When  almost  every  matter  of  whatever  nature, 
which  comes  before  a  legislature  is  treated  as  a  party 
issue,  the  legislature  is  robbed  of  its  distinctive  char- 
acter as  a  deliberative  assembly,  debate  becomes  a 
mere  empty  form,  and  the  actual  decision  is  reached 
by  an  extra-Constitutional  body,  the  Party  council. 
Legislators  still  flock  to  the  capitol,  the  warfare  of 
words  continues  unabated,  the  roll  is  called,  the 
votes  are  counted;  but  all  this  motion  is  like  that 
of  a  motor  which  is  left  to  run  after  it  has  been  dis- 
connected  from  the  transmission  shaft. 

In  England,  where  Party  discipline  is,  perhaps, 
even  more  strict  than  it  is  in  the  United  States,  and 
where  political  life  is  certainly  more  frank,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  House  of  Commons,  speaking  some  years 
ago  on  the  question  of  Woman's  Suffrage,  which  had 
been  declared,  by  agreement,   not  to  be   a   Party 
question,  taunteJ  the  House  with  its  subservience  to 
Party  dictation.     Probably,  he  said,   for  the  first 
time  within  the  Parliamentary  lifetime  of  any  one 
present  members  were  called  upon  to  give  their  votes 
in  respect  to  a  measure  of  first-class  Constitutional 
and  political  importance  free  from  party  pressure. 
No  wonder  they  felt  embarrassed.     It  was  so  long 
since  they  had  used  them  that  their  faculties  of  free 
judgment  were  atrophied.     At  last  they  might  speak 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  223 

the  truth,  and  they  found  their  powers  of  truth- 
ful utterance  were  paralyzed  by  long  disuse.* 

Mr.  Herbert  Croly  has  given  a  more  sweeping, 
if  a  less  humorous,  condemnation  of  Party  in  the 
United  States.  "The  whole  system  of  popular  par- 
tisan politics,"  he  says,t  "has  been  little  more  than 
a  conspiracy  to  evade  the  restrictions  of  the  official 
system  and  to  substitute  for  it  the  unprincipled  au- 
thority of  a  partisan  organization." 

Apart  from  the  direct  influence  which  Party  pres- 
sure brings  to  bear  upon  legislators,  there  is  to  be 
considered  the  indirect  influence  which  the  Party 
System  exerts  in  determining  the  type  of  the  active 
politician.  The  qualities  which  are  most  esteemed 
in  a  Party  politician  are,  for  the  most  part,  those 
which  should  be  least  esteemed  in  a  legislator.  In 
order  to  secure  election  a  man  must  be  prepared  to 
sacrifice  reason  to  emotion,  judgment  to  opinion, 
moderation  to  violence,  truth  to  plausibility,  convic- 
tion to  expediency,  sincerity  to  pretense. 

When  these  sacrifices  have  induced  the  oracle  of 
the  ballot-box  to  pronounce  his  name,  the  devotee 
has  already  placed  two  mortgages  upon  his  inde- 
pendence— ^the  first  to  his  Party,  the  second  to  those 
whom  his  solicitations  and  his  pledges  persuaded 
to  vote  for  him. 

•Quoted  from  "The  Great  Society,"  by  Graham  WalUi. 
t  "Progressive  Democracy,"  p.  158. 


,24  DEMOCRACY  AND  THE  HUMAN  EQUATION 
It  would  be  ridiculous  to  expect  that  the  kind  of 
n.an  who  will  pay  such  a  price  for  elect.on   w.  1  find 
any  price  too  high  to  pay  for  reelection      But  part 
of'this  second  price  must  be  paid  in  a  d.fieren    cu  - 
rency.     He  must  now  sacrifice  not  only  what  is  h  s 
own  to  give-those  things  for  which  he  is  responsible 
This  own  conscience  alone-but  also  what  other 
have  entrusted  to  him-those  things  for  which  he 
is  responsible  as  a  "guardian  of  the  public  weal. 

That  there  are  men  of  high  character  and  of 
marked  ability  in  American  political  life  no  one 
would  be  prepared  to  deny;  that  these  qualities  dis- 
Iguish  more  than  a  small  minority  of  American 
politicians  few  would  be  prepared  to  affirm 

This  state  of  affairs  is  not  due  to  any  lack  of  these 
qualities  in  the  American  people;  it  is  due  to  he 
fact  that  the  degradation  of  the  representative  prin- 
ciple in  American  politics  has  given  a  survival  va  ue 
to  attributes  which  are  seldom  found  in  association 
with  high  character  or  with  marked  ability. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  general  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  the 
foregoing  discussion  are  that  the  quality  of 
Government  depends  more  upon  the  human  equa- 
tion than  upon  the  mechanical;  that  Government  Is 
to  be  estimated  in  terms  of  its  function  and  not  in 
terms  of  Its  form. 

If  Pope  went  too  far  In  one  direction,  In  his  well- 
known  lines: 


"For  forms  of  Government  let  fools  contest—* 
Whate'er  is  best  administer'd  is  best"  ; 

the  prevailing  opinion  In  the  United  States  goes  too 
far  in  the  other.  In  the  words  of  Emerson:  "The 
law  Is  only  a  memorandum.  We  are  superstitious, 
and  esteem  the  statute  somewhat;  so  much  life  as 
it  has  in  the  character  of  living  men,  Is  its  force." 
The  problem  of  rescuing  Government  from  the 
low  estate  into  which  It  has  fallen,  of  making  It  serv- 
iceable to  the  needs  of  the  day,  of  restoring  It  to 
that  high  place  In  the  confidence  of  the  people  which 
It  formerly  occupied,  and  of  giving  that  confidence 
a  rational  Instead  of  a  sentimental  anchorage  is  not 

225 


^^6  DEMOCRACY  AND  THE  HUMAN  EQUATION 

one  which  can  be  solved  by  a  formula.  Too  many 
causes  have  combined,  and  over  too  long  a  penod. 
in  producing  the  present  distrust  of  Govermnent  to 
allow  of  either  a  quick  or  a  simple  cure. 

There  is  little  to  hope  from  any  attempt  to  im- 
prove  Government  unless  it  is  preceded  by  a  clear 
decision  in  regard  to  three  factors  in  the  situation 
to  which  all  others  are  subordmate.  These  may 
be  conveniently  presented  in  the  form  of  three  ques- 

( I )   Are  we  prepared  to  accept  and  to  give  Con- 
stitutional  force  to  a  definition  of  "representation 
in  political  agency  which  plainly  distinguishes  it  from 

"delegation''?  ,       i      •      r     « 

(a)  Are  we  prepared  to  modify  the  elective  fran- 
chise so  as  to  base  it  upon  a  qualitative  instead  of 
upon  a  purely  quantitative  principle? 

(,)  Are  we  prepared  to  elevate  the  administra- 
tive element  in  Government  to  the  status  of  an  ap- 

'"RjSrKXATlON.  I  have  already  placed  before 
the  reader  the  essential  elements  of  the  issue  between 
representation  and  delegation  as  the  prime  postu- 
late in  political  agency.  So  long  as  any  confusion 
allowed  to  exist  as  to  which  of  these  two  princi- 
ples is  the  mainspring  of  our  political  insti^iU^^n^ 
just  so  long  will  the  strife  continue  between  those 
who  wish  to  turn  the  United  States  into  a  Direct 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  227 

Democracy  and  those  who  wish  to  preserve  it  as  a 
Republic.  It  is  only  by  raising  this  issue,  by  forc- 
ing it  upon  public  attention,  by  keeping  it  constantly 
in  the  front  line  of  all  serious  political  discussion 
that  a  decision  can  be  reached.  Whilst  it  remains 
open  the  resource  is  available  to  the  Direct  Demo- 
crats of  destroying  the  representative  principle 
piecemeal,  and  of  confronting  the  country  at  no 
distant  day  with  a  fait  accompli. 

The  responsibility  for  the  present  situation  lies 
on  the  shoulders  of  the  Constitutionalists.  The  is- 
sue of  direct  Government  has  been  squarely  raised 
by  the  advocates  of  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum, 
and  the  Recall;  and  the  very  core  of  their  conten- 
tion is  that  delegation  is  the  ark  of  the  political 
covenant.  It  is  an  issue  which  is  not  squarely  met 
by  the  Constitutionalists  when  they  confine  their 
arguments  to  showing  that  the  I.  R.  R.  will  destroy 
the  sense  of  responsibility  in  legislators,  will  para- 
lyze the  arm  of  justice,  and  will  obfuscate  the  ad- 
ministration of  public  affairs.  If  the  Constitution- 
alists do  not  believe  that  representation  as  opposed 
to  delegation  is  the  true  test  of  Republicanism,  or  if, 
believing  it,  they  do  not  make  that  issue  the  citadel 
of  their  position,  their  whole  case  goes  by  the  board; 
and  the  distinction  between  them  and  the  Direct 
Democrats  is  of  a  formal  and  not  of  a  vital  char- 
acter. 


228  DEMOCRACY  AND  THE  HUMAN  EQUATION 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  estab- 
lished  a  certain  type  of  political  agency :  that  type 
cannot  be  both  Direct  Democracy  and  Representa- 
tive  Republicanism;  it  cannot  be  a  mixture  of  these 
opposite  types.  The  most  important  pohtical  ques- 
tion  of  the  day  in  this  country  is:  What  type  of 
political  agency  did  the  Constitution  establish. 

The  Elective  Franchise.     It  appears  to  be  a 
general  characteristic  of  the  so-called  Western  Na- 
tions  that  their  first  instinct  is  to  employ  methods  of 
extension  and  that  they  resort  to  methods  of  inten- 
sion  only  when  the  former  have  reached  or  have 
closely  approached  a  visible  limit.     I^-ther  words 
the  quantitative  sense  being  more  primitive  than  the 
qualitative,  number  and  quantity  make  the  first  ap- 
Jeal  to  the  average  mind.     I  need  not  enlarge  upon 
the  important  part  which  the  extensive  principle  has 
played  in  the  development  of  empires,  of  agricul- 
ture,  of  commerce,  of  industry,  of  education,    tirs 
there   comes  the   reaching  out   for  new  areas  of 
exploitation-for  the  nation  more  provinces,   for 
the  farmer  new  fields  for  his  tillage,  for  the  trades- 
man  more  customers,  for  the  manufacturer  larger 
production,  for  the  schools  and  universities  more 
students.     The  question  of  quality  is  always  post- 
poned  until  the  possibilities  of  quantitative  compe- 
tition  are  nearing  exhaustion. 

Government,  in  common  with  every  other  cor- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  229 

porate  activity  of  the  Western  Nations,  has  suffered 
from  this  obsession  of  number  and  quantity.  It 
has  expressed  itself  on  the  political  side  in  the 
constant  extension  of  the  elective  franchise,  and  on 
the  administrative  side  in  the  constant  extension  of 
the  area  of  governmental  activity,  of  which  the 
plethora  of  legislation  is  the  characteristic  symptom. 

So  long  as  any  one  remained  outside  the  pale  of 
the  elective  franchise  the  road  was  still  open  in  the 
direction  of  quantitative  extension;  and  few  people 
could  be  brought  even  to  discuss  the  possibility  of 
introducing  any  qualitative  element  into  the  electoral 
system. 

With  the  ratification  of  the  Nineteenth  Amend- 
ment the  situation  is  entirely  changed.  There  is  noth- 
ing left  on  which  the  quantitative  appetite  can  nour- 
ish itself;  and  as  no  human  institution  can  stand  still 
the  elective  franchise  is  now  certain  to  fall,  sooner 
or  later,  under  the  influence  of  a  movement  based 
upon  qualitative  considerations.  The  cry  of  "More 
Voters  I"  is  dead  in  the  land;  and  we  shall  soon  begin 
to  hear  the  cry  of  "Better  Voters  I" 

It  appears  to  be  well  within  the  range  of  possi- 
bility that  the  women  voters,  who  at  present  must 
divide  on  lines  already  drawn  on  the  map  of  poli- 
tics, may  make  this  cry  their  slogan.  There  is  much 
to  be  said  in  favor  of  the  view  that  this  new  body 
of  voters  may  now  employ  their  idealism  and  their 


1: 


♦     ( 


230  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

reforming  instincts  in  a  concerted  effort  to  elevate 
the  tone  of  politics.  If  they  should  turn  in  this 
direction  they  would  bring  to  their  task  the  valuable 
experience  they  have  gained  in  conducting  their  own 
fight,  and  they  would  be  sustained  by  a  nobler  con- 
viction,  since  it  would  rest  not  upon  a  conception  o 
political  rights  but  upon  a  conception  of  political 

As  a  necessary  preliminary  to  any  effort  to  im- 
prove  the  quality  of  the  electorate,  the  position  m 
regard  to  the  electoral  franchise  should  be  recon- 
sidered.  It  is  now  much  easier  to  embark  upon 
such  an  undertaking  than  it  was  before  the  Nine- 
teenth  Amendment  was  ratified.  An  electoral  the- 
ory  which  can  survive  the  shock  of  that  Amendment 
has  nothing  left  to  fear.  ^ 

The  belief  that  every  adult  citizen  has  a    natural 
right  to  vote  at  elections  is  widely  entertained  in  the 
United  States.    It  is  derived,  by  association  of  ideas, 
from  the  "unalienable  rights'*  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence.    There  is  no  warrant  whatever  for 
it     The  right  to  vote  is  specifically  conferred  upon 
citizens  by  the  several  States  of  the  Union.     Pro- 
vided  the  States  do  not  set  up  a  qualification  rest- 
ing  upon  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  serv- 
itude-which  would  violate  the  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ment-they  can,  so  far  as  any  legal  restraint  goes, 
Umit  the  right  to  vote  by  any  qualification  they 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  231 

may  wish  to  impose.  "Manhood  suffrage  in  this 
country,"  says  Dr.  Hannis  Taylor  in  his  Origin  and 
Growth  of  the  American  Constitution,  "rests  upon 
no  guarantee  that  the  States  may  not  at  any  time 
set  aside." 

The  question  of  who  should  be  allowed  to  vote 
is  simply  one  of  expediency.  The  only  people  who 
have  anything  to  gain  by  spreading  abroad  the  idea 
that  a  vote  is  something  which  naturally  belongs  to 
a  man  are  the  professional  politicians.  The  larger 
the  proportion  of  ignorant  voters,  the  easier  is  the 
business  of  controlling  the  electorate.  The  argu- 
ment that  to  exclude  the  more  ignorant  citizens  from 
the  voting  privilege  undermines  the  stability  of  the 
State,  since  if  that  class  is  denied  the  political  weap- 
on it  will  seize  the  weapon  of  violence,  will  not  bear 
a  moment's  scrutiny.  It  is  precisely  this  class  which 
is  first  exploited,  for  his  own  purposes,  by  the  poli- 
tician, and  beyond  that  point,  for  his  own  purposes, 
by  the  advocate  of  violence. 

I  employ  the  word  ^'ignorant"  because  until  within 
recent  years  we  have  not  had  available  a  scientific 
system  of  grading  mental  qualities;  and  the  rough 
division  into  *'the  ignorant  voter"  and  '*the  intelli- 
gent voter"  has  been  very  generally  adopted  in  po- 
litical discussion.  The  antithesis  is  open  to  two 
serious  objections — one  that  it  is  false,  because  op- 
posite quality  to  intelligence  is  not  ignorance,  but 


w 


232  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

stupidity;  the  other  that  it  really  meant  nothing,  be- 
cause  even  if   it  were   amended   so   as   to   oppose 
intelligence  to  stupidity,  or  knowledge  to  ignorance, 
no   dividing-line  could  be  drawn  which  separated 
these  qualities  from  each  other  at  a  definite  point. 
The  great  progress  which  has  been  made  during 
the  past  decade  in  devising  tests  for  mental  capacity 
enables  us  to  form  a  very  definite  estimate  of  the 
stage  of  mental  development  which  any  person  has 
reached.    We  know  that  the  average  adult  never 
progresses  beyond  the  mental  status  of  a  youth  of 
sixteen.    If  a  hundred  thousand  persons  are  graded 
on  a  system  of  mental  tests,   and  the  results  are 
plotted,  we  get  a  symmetrical  curve,  almost  touching 
a  base-line  at  each  end,  and  having  its  highest  point 
over  the  center  of  the  line.    A  vertical  line  dropped 
from  the  high  point  to  the  base-line  shows  the  num- 
ber of  individuals   in   the   mean  grade;   and  lines 
dropped  to  the  right  and  left  of  this  center-line— 
which  will,  of  course,  be  shorter  and  shorter  as  they 
approach  the  ends  of  the  base-line— will  show  the 
number  of  individuals  falling  into  each  grade  be- 
tween  idiocy  and  high  intelligence. 

If  the  elective  franchise  is  to  be  qualified  the  task 
may  very  well  be  begun  by  giving  practical  effect  to 
a  principle  to  which  lip-service  has  been  yielded  for 
many  years,  namely,  that  the  success  of  popular 
Government  depends  upon  education.    If  we  really 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  235 


believe  that  to  be  true  we  are  under  moral  bonds 
to  establish  a  direct  connection  between  the  educa- 
tional system  and  the  political  system. 

If  education  were  available  to  every  child  in  the 
United  States,  no  one  who  grows  up  in  this  country 
could  be  taken  to  be  excluded  from  the  franchise 
if  its  grant  were  made  dependent  upon  the  applicant 
having  passed,  let  us  say,  the  grammar-school  grade. 
The  case  of  adults  who  immigrated  and  who,  at  that 
time,  had  not  reached  a  grammar-school  standard 
of  education,  and  the  case  of  those  born  in  this 
country  who,  from  whatever  cause,  had  not  reached 
that  standard,  could  be  met  by  the  institution  of 
examinations  open  to  any  one  who  t  ished  to  pass 
the  educational  test  for  a  voter. 

A  qualification  of  this  kind  would  work  no  hard- 
ship on  any  one.  If  a  citizen  esteems  his  vote  so 
lightly  that  he  will  not  submit  himself  to  the  mod- 
erate exertion  of  meeting  such  a  requirement,  his 
possession  of  the  right  to  vote  could  in  no  way 
contribute  to  the  welfare  of  the  State.  To  those 
who  wished  to  rise  from  a  condition  of  passive 
to  one  of  active  citizenship  the  existence  of  the 
qualification  would  be  a  strong  incentive  to  self- 
improvement. 

If  such  a  qualification  were  attached  to  the  voting 
privilege  a  new  and  forceful  reason  would  be  added 
to  those  which  already  exist  for  undertaking  a  thor- 


V 


I 

1 


234  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

ough  reform  of  the  educational  system.  Its 
present  condition,  as  it  is  portrayed  by  competent 
judges,  is  extremely  unsatisfactory.  The  outstand- 
ing features  of  the  situation  are  dealt  with  in  two 
recent  articles  which,  if  the  reader  has  not  seen 
them,  I  earnestly  commend  to  his  attention.  Writ- 
ing in  the  Yale  Review  for  July,  1920,  Professor  E. 
A.  Cross,  Dean  of  the  State  Teachers'  College  of 
Colorado,  points  out  that  there  are  approximately 
650,000  teachers  in  the  United  States,  of  whom 
about  130,000  are  male  and  520,000  female;  that 
the  average  preparation  for  teaching  is  only  four 
years  beyond  the  eighth  school  grade,  that  the  aver- 
age length  of  service  in  teaching  is,  for  men,  seven 
years,  and,  for  women,  not  more  than  four;  and 
that,  in  such  circumstances,  "to  put  the  whole  truth 
about  the  profession  of  teaching  in  America  into  a 
single  gloomy  sentence — there  is  no  such  thing." 

The  author  states  that  of  the  650,000  teaching 
positions  in  the  public  schools,  thirty-nine  thousand 
are  vacant,  and  that  sixty-five  thousand  are  held  by 
teachers  who  have  not  even  qualified  themselves 
according  to  the  low  standard  which  now  prevails. 
One-sixth  of  the  children  of  the  country  are  either 
out  of  school  or  are  in  an  apology  for  a  school; 
one-sixteenth  of  the  schools  are  closed  for  the  lack 
of  teachers;  and  of  those  which  are  open  an  increas- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  235 

ing  number  is  being  taught  by  boys  and  girls  under 
twenty-one  years  of  age. 

Professor  Cross  compresses  into  a  short  para- 
graph the  contrast  between  teaching  and  the  other 
professions.  **The  usual  preparation,"  he  says,  "for 
law,  medicine,  architecture  and  engineenng  is  eight 
years  above  the  eighth  grade.  The  men  and  women 
who  educate  themselves  for  these  professions  expect 
to  work  for  a  lifetime  in  the  profession  for  which 
they  fit  themselves.  The  public  does  not  trust  its 
health,  its  disputes,  its  building,  its  engineering  pro- 
jects, to  boys  and  girls  of  eighteen;  but  it  does  en- 
trust to  such  untrained  youths  what  is  vastly  more 
important:  the  training  of  the  next  generation  of 
the  citizens  of  the  republic.  And  for  assuming  this 
tremendously  heavy  responsibility,  it  pays  them  the 
wages  of  grocers'  boys  and  kitchen  mechanics." 

In  The  North  American  Review  for  September, 
1920,  Professor  Vernon  Kellogg  writes  on  "The 
Fate  of  the  Nation.'*  This  depends,  of  course,  upon 
education,  among  other  things ;  and  of  the  state  of 
education  he  gives  a  most  discouraging  account.  He 
attributes  it  to  **the  scandalous  and  impossible  con- 
dition of  slave  labor*'  to  which  the  teacher  is  sub- 
jected; and  in  support  of  this  characterization  he 
presents  some  highly  significant  figures.  On  the 
basis  of  returns  from  the  public  schools  of  392  cities, 


H 


\ 


] 


236  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

Professor  Kellogg  states  that  in  the  school  year* 
19 1 8-19,  ten  per  cent  of  the  teachers  were  paid  less 
than  $600  a  year,  forty  per  cent  less  than  $800, 
seventy-two  per  cent  less  than  $1,000,  and  ninety- 
nine  and  a  half  per  cent  less  than  $1,500. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  Bureau  of  Education 
should  announce  110,000  vacancies  in  the  teaching 
staff  of  the  elementary  schools,  for  the  new  school- 
year,  with  only  30,000  trained  teachers  to  fill  them. 
Professor  Kellogg  quotes  from  School  Life,  a  fort- 
nightly publication  issued  by  the  Bureau  of  Educa- 
tion, some  interesting  instances  of  teachers  in  schools 
and  universities  who  have  recently  turned  to  more 
lucrative  employments.     The  list  includes  a  profes- 
sor of  modern  languages  at  $1,200  a  year,  who  Is 
now  a  trade  commissioner  at  $4,500;  a  professor 
of  English  at  $1,500  who  Is  now  an  advertising 
manager   at   $5,000,    and   a    college    president   at 
$3,000  who  is  now  engaged  in  commercial  work 

at  $7,500. 

Until  teachers  are  offered  salaries  In  some  reason- 
able degree  commensurate  with  the  importance  we 
are  unanimous  in  attributing  to  their  function— 
which.  Indeed,  cannot  be  overstated— we  must  expect 
the  rising  generation  to  bear  the  impress  of  that 
Inferiority  which  stamps  the  average  teacher,  and 
of  which  the  present  salary  scale  Is  the  Index.^ 

With  a  higher  type  of  character  and  intelligence 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  237 

in  the  teaching  profession,  with  a  more  widely- 
diffused  knowledge  of  the  science  of  teaching,  as 
differentiated  from  the  mere  business  of  Impart- 
ing information  to  children,  public  opinion  would  not 
be  slow  to  respond  to  a  new  stimulus  toward  vitaliz- 
ing the  educational  system.  At  present  the  schools 
are  In  the  anomalous  position  of  being  almost  com- 
pletely cut  off  from  any  useful  connection  with  either 
the  political  or  the  social  life  of  the  nation.  They 
do  not  supply  an  adequate  foundation  for  scholar- 
ship, or  for  a  technical  career,  or  for  manners  and 
morals,  or  for  an  understanding  of  the  social  recip- 
rocal of  rights  and  duties,  or  for  an  intelligent  par- 
ticipation in  politics. 

This  state  of  affairs  does  not  furnish  an  argument 
against  an  educational  qualification  for  the  voter, 
for  a  low  standard  is  better  than  none;  It  would, 
however.  If  an  educational  qualification  were  estab- 
lished, furnish  a  most  powerful  argument  for  im- 
proving the  school  system. 

An  indiscriminate  elective  franchise,  by  admitting 
every  one  Into  the  body  of  active  citizenship,  poisons 
the  well  of  political  agency.  A  few  drops  of  poison 
are  not  isolated  In  the  cup:  they  taint  the  whole 
draught ;  and  It  Is  thus  in  politics.  The  vote  Is  taken 
away  from  a  felon,  even  though  his  crime  has 
touched  but  a  single  individual;  it  is  surely  not  a 
revolutionary  proposal  that  the  vote  should  be  with- 


ii 


II 


)l. 


h 


M' 


ii 


238  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

held  from  those  whose  ignorance  makes  their  use 
of  it  a  crime  against  society  itself. 

The  alarming  rate  at  which  public  expenditures 
have  grown  during  the  past  twenty  years,  the  in- 
creasing  ratio  in  which  the  public  revenue  Is  being 
raised  from  direct  taxation,  the  absence  of  any 
Constitutional  limit— save  that  of  confiscation— to 
the  tax-rate  which  may  be  applied  to  incomes,  cannot 
fail  to  bring  to  the  front  the  question  of  reverting 
to  a  property  qualification  for  the  voter. 

It  is  no  more  than  just  that  a  very  large  propor- 
tion of  the  tax  burden  should  be  borne  by  those  who 
are  in  affluent  or,  at  least,  in  easy  circumstances;  in- 
deed,  when  it  is  a  matter  of  raising  billions  of  dollars 
annually  by  Federal,  State,  County  and  City  taxa- 
tion,  there  is  no  other  resource  open  to  the  tax- 
gatherer  than  the  pockets  of  the  rich  and  of  the 
well-to-do.  But  it  is  less  than  just,  and  very  much 
less  than  expedient,  that  in  regard  to  the  disposal 
of  the  vast  public  revenues  any  one  should  have  a 
voice  who  has  not  made  some  direct  contribution 

to  the  fund. 

Those  who  pay  an  inheritance  tax,  or  an  income 
tax,  or  any  tax  assessed  on  property,  make  up  the 
great  aggregate  of  the  responsible  citizenship  of  the 
country.  If  a  small  income  tax  were  levied  in  each 
State  on  all  incomes  over  five  hundred  dollars  there 
would  not  be  left  outside  the  ranks  of  direct  tax- 


i  ' 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  239 

payers  a  man  or  a  woman  to  whose  vote  there  was 
attached  any  value  save  its  market  price. 

There  is  no  one  who  does  not  receive  something 
from  Government,  in  the  way  of  protection  for  his 
life,  or  of  education  for  his  children,  or  from  the 
water-supply,  or  from  meat-inspection,  or  from 
street-lighting,  or  what  not.  Those  who  make  no 
direct  contribution  in  return  have  small  claim  to  a 
share  in  controlling  Government.  The  applicant  for 
the  voting  privilege  would  have  a  much  clearer 
understanding  than  he  now  has  of  his  connection 
with  the  State  if  he  had  to  present  a  tax-receipt  and 
a  school-certificate. 

The  importance  of  attaching  an  educational  and 
a  property  qualification  to  the  elective  franchise  is 
not  to  be  measured  by  the  quality  of  those  who  are 
admitted,  which  may  not  be  very  high,  but  by  the 
quality  of  those  who  are  excluded,  which  will  cer- 
tainly be  very  low.  To  adapt  to  the  conditions  of 
to-day  Macaulay's  phrase  about  the  Reform  Bill  of 
1832:  That  we  may  admit  those  whom  it  is  safe 
to  admit,  we  must  exclude  those  whom  it  is  neces- 
sary to  exclude. 

Government  as  an  Applied  Science.  Al- 
though we  find  in  the  universities  professorships  of 
Political  Science,  of  Politics,  of  Political  Economy, 
of  Government,  and  of  Civics,  the  idea  of  a  Science 
of  Government  is  repugnant  to  general  opinion. 


!i 


'  -y-. 


\-'. 


I, 


240  DEMOCRACY  AND  THE  HUMAN  EQUATION 

Whether  this  is  due  to  the  low  visibility  of  a  scien- 
tific principle  in  Government,  as  we  observe  Govern- 
ment  in  operation,  or  to  a  vague  sense  of  the  im- 
possibility of  bringing  within  the  bounds  of  formula 
anything  so   complex  as  modern  Government,   or 
whether  the  feeling  is  akin  to  that  instinctive  dislike 
which  most  people  exhibit  towards  anything  which 
is  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  their  will  or  fancy, 
the  fact  remains  that  it  has  hitherto  been  impossible 
to  secure  any  wide  acceptance  of  the  view  that  a 
Science  of  Government  can  be  formulated  and  its 
laws  administered  as  an  Art. 

It  is  obvious  that  no  subject  of  which  will  and 
opinion  form  part  of  the  material  to  be  analyzed 
can  be  treated  wholly  as  a  science,  even  though  will 
and  opinion  can  be  scientifically  examined  in  relation 
to  their  own  nature,  and  with  reference  to  their  in- 
fluence on  action.    It  does  not  follow,  however  that 
because  one  factor  in  Government  is  intractab  e  the 
whole  body  of  it  must  be  turned  over  to  speculation 
and  conjecture.     For  the  purposes  of  scientific  in- 
quiry, Government  can,  in  fact,  be  divided  into  two 
clearly   distinguishable   elements— politics  and   ad- 
ministration.    To  the  former  belongs  the  task  of 
ascertaining  the  decisions  of  the  electorate,  to  the 
latter  the  task  of  putting  these  decisions  into  ettect. 
When  these  two  elements  are  considered  separately 
it  is  seen  that  each  of  them  is  susceptible  of  scientific 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  241 


analysis,  and  that  the  latter  is  also  susceptible  of 
receiving  a  scientific  impress. 

The  part  played  In  Government  by  public  will  and 
opinion  is  chiefly,  and  should  be  almost  entirely,  con- 
fined within  the  domain  of  policy,  and  even  in  that 
domain  their  authority  is,  under  a  true  Interpreta- 
tion of  representative  government,  restricted  by  the 
judgment  of  legislators.  It  Is,  of  course,  impossible 
to  foretell  with  certainty  what  impulse  the  public 
will  give  to  policy  In  regard  to  any  particular  mat- 
ter submitted  to  it ;  but  the  general  laws  which  govern 
the  formation  of  public  opinion  and  the  concentra- 
tion of  the  public  will  can  be  determined  with  an 
accuracy  quite  as  close  as  that  attained  through  the 
study  of  any  series  of  causes  and  effects  In  human 
action. 

That  this  is  recognized  by  practical  politicians  is 
proved  by  the  means  they  employ  to  catch  votes. 
The  full  dinner-pail  and  the  empty  dinner-pail,  the 
big  loaf  and  the  little  loaf,  the  large  pay-envelope 
and  the  small  pay-envelope,  the  crowds  of  smiling 
citizens  filing  into  the  factory,  the  sullen  groups 
gathered  around  the  closed  gates,  the  picture  of  the 
farm  laborers  working  in  the  fields,  the  pi'-ture  of 
the  same  men  cowering  in  a  trench  with  the  shells 
bursting  over  their  heads — all  these,  and  a  hundred 
similar  arguments  which  are  presented  to  the  public 
eye  in  newspaper  cartoons,  on  bill-boards,  on  the 


l( 


.1 


it 


)l 


s 


242  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

moving-picture  film,  bear  witness  to  the  acceptance 
of  a  crude  theory  of  probability  applicable  to  the 
mental  and  emotional  reactions  in  politics. 

Within  the  past  twenty  years  a  great  advance  has 
been  made  in  applying  a  psychological  method  to 
the  study  of  politics,  with  the  result  that  there  is 
becoming  available  in  relation  to  politics  the  kind 
of  material  which  has  already  revolutionized  our 
understanding  of  education— that  is  to  say,  a  record 
and  analysis  of  observed  reactions  from  which  gen- 
eral laws  can  be  induced.    Such  works  as  Le  Bon's 
*Tsychology  of   the   Crowd,"   Tarde's   "Laws   of 
Imitation,^'  McDougalPs  "Social  Psychology,"  and 
Graham  Wallas's  "Human  Nature  in  Politics"  and 
*The  Great  Society,"  indicate  very  clearly  that  the 
student  of  politics  will,  before  very  long,  be  as  near 
an  exact  knowledge  of  cause  and  effect  as  the  student 
of  advertising  now  has  in  his  special  field. 

To  determine,  within  a  moderate  range  of  prob- 
able error,  what  share  is  taken  respectively  by  im- 
pulse,  habit,  instinct,  reason,  and  emotion  in  the 
determination  of  political  action  is  simply  a  matter 
of  thorough  investigation  by  competent  specialists 
in  biology,  psychology,  sociology,  and  politics,  work- 
ing  together  so  that  their  observations  and  conclu- 
sions  may  be  synthesized  into  a  single  system. 

In  the  introduction  to  his  '^Human  Nature  in 
Politics,"  Graham  Wallas— to  whom  all  students  of 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  243 

Government  owe  a  debt  of  gratitude — refers  to  the 
fact  that  nearly  all  students  of  politics  analyze  in- 
stitutions and  avoid  the  analysis  of  man,  and  that 
this  has  a  harmful  effect  both  on  the  science  and  the 
conduct  of  politics.     Elsewhere  in  the  same  volume 
(Synopsis  of  Contents,  p.  xiv)    he  states  in   four 
lines  the  conception  on  which  politics  will  have  to 
be  founded  if  the  state  of  political  agency  is  to  be 
improved:  ''An  election  (like  a  jury  trial),''  he  says, 
"will  be,   and  is  already  beginning  to  be,   looked 
upon  rather  as  a  process  by  which  right  decisions 
are  formed  under  right  conditions,  than  as  a  mechan- 
ical expedient  by  which  decisions  already  formed  are 
ascertained." 

This  enlightened  view  of  the  function  which  the 
voter  should  perform  in  Representative  Government 
raises  a  question  of  the  first  magnitude,  namely, 
whether  the  State  can  continue  to  give  free  rein  to 
all  the  agencies  by  which  misinformation  is  diffused 
among  the  people  and  by  which  popular  passion  is 
inflamed  and  exploited  in  the  interest  of  particular 
individuals  or  groups.  At  the  present  time  it  is  open 
to  any  one  who  has  money  at  his  command  to  flood 
the  country  with  misstatements  and  with  arguments 
based  upon  them,  in  regard  to  every  question  with 
which  Government  is  concerned;  and  it  is  nobody's 
business  to  interfere  in  the  interests  of  truth.  The 
question  is  not  one  of  restricting  the  expression  of 


It ' 


\i 


ii 


244  DEMOCRACY  AND  THE  HUMAN  EQUATION 

opinion  but  of  restricting  the  output  of  falsehood 
and  misrepresentation. 

When  this  matter  is  discussed  the  point  is  usually 
made  that  since  there  is  rivalry  between  one  news- 
paper  and   another,    important   misstatements   are 
always  detected  and  exposed,  if  on  no  higher  ground 
than  that  such  exposures  are  good  busmess.     It  is 
a  vicious  argument.    Few  people  occupy  themselves 
in  checking  the  statements  of  one  newspaper  by  com- 
paring them  with  those  of  another ;  and  even  if  this 
were  a  common  practice  the  reader  would  seldom 
be  in  a  position  to  determine  whether  the  he  was  in 
the  original  statement  or  in  the  refutation.    Another 
argument,  even  more  vidous,  Is  that  people  do  not 
believe  all  they  read,  that  they  make  allowances  for 
exaggeration  and  falsehood,  and  apply  their  common 
sense  to  the  news  of  the  day.    This  Is  all  very  well 
when  the  news  Is  about  the  discovery  of  a  petrified 
man  twelve  feet  long,  or  about  a  plan  to  get  the 
nation's  supply  of  mechanical  power  from  the  ebb 
and  flow  of  the  tides.    But  a  man's  common  sense  is 
very  little  use  to  him  when  the  point  at  issue  is 
whether  or  not  it  is  true  that  a  public  service  cor- 
poration  has  been  falsifying  its  books  over  a  long 
period,  or  whether  a  law  has  been  passed  through 
corruption  and  blackmail. 

The  law  takes  a  very  serious  view  of  a  published 
falsehood  which  injures  an  individual;  but  very  little 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  245 

consideration  has  thus  far  been  given  to  that  kind 
of  falsehood  which,  by  poisoning  the  well  of  truth, 
defiles  the  source  of  Government.  Enough  has  been 
said  to  show  that  even  in  regard  to  that  element  in 
Government  which  seems  to  be  least  amenable  to 
scientific  analysis  a  great  opportunity  Is  open  to 
Increase  our  knowledge,  and  thus  to  pave  the  way 
for  an  Improved  method  of  adjusting  the  elective 
principle  to  the  various  Influences  by  which  it  is 
affected. 

Will  and  opinion  In  politics  have,  up  to  this  point, 
been  discussed  with  reference  to  their  origins;  It 

• 

remains  to  say  something  of  their  operation.  Here 
we  approach  the  frontier  which  separates  politics 
from  administration,  the  line  where  discussion  must 
center  around  the  question  of  what  part  of  Govern- 
ment should  be  directly  under  the  dominion  of  polit- 
ical agency  and  what  part  should  be  assigned  to 
administrative  technique. 

It  does  not  require  more  than  a  moment's  reflec- 
tion to  realize  that  there  is  a  difference  between  the 
kind  of  agency  suitable  to  determine  whether  the 
United  States  should  adopt  a  big-navy  policy,  and 
the  kind  suitable  to  determine  whether  the  capital 
ships  o7  the  navy  should  be  equipped  with  super- 
imposed turrets.  Where  the  difference  is  as  clearly 
marked  as  it  is  in  the  above  instance,  no  practical 
difficulty  arises  in  regard  to  the  separation  of  func- 


I  i 


I  : 


246  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

tion— one  question  is  decided  by  Congress,  the  other 
by  naval  experts. 

But,  measured  by  the  vast  extent  of  Government 
activity,  the  area  which  has  been  delimited  in  re- 
spect of  political  and  of  administrative  agency  is 
very  small.    Except  in  matters  of  a  highly  technical 
nature,  such  as  the  work  of  the  Bureau  of  Standards 
or  of  the  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey,  it  may  be 
said  that  the  whole  of  Government  is  regarded  as 
an  open  area  for  the  application  of  political  opinion. 
Now  the  question  of  what  should  and  what  should 
not  be  submitted  to  public  opinion  can  be  treated 
scientifically  to  some  extent,  because  when  the  nature 
of  any  subject  is  examined  it  can  be   determined 
whether  popular  opinion  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon 
it     Matters  in  which  the  issue  is  clearly  one  of  gen- 
eral policy— such  as  a  protective  tariff,  universal 
military  training,  or  Chinese  exclusion— and  in  re- 
gard to  which  a  "yes  or  no"  answer  can  be  given, 
may  draw  out  what  is  really  an  expression  of  popular 
opinion.    If  the  matter  is  one  involving  a  Itnowledge 
of  detail— such  as  the  granting  of  a  particular  tele- 
phone franchise  or  the  enactment  of  a  particular 
anti-trust  law,  where  the  difference  between  expedi- 
ency  and   inexpediency   may   hinge    upon    a    single 
phrase,  or  even  upon  a  single  word— what  you  get 
by  an  appeal  to  public  opinion  is  not  opinion  at  all: 
it  is  only  an  expression  of  will. 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  247 

Public  opinion  upon  questions  falling  within  the 
first  class  may,  indeed,  be  formed  by  a  process  which 
has  little  to  do  with  knowledge  or  judgment;  but  it 
is,  nevertheless,  opinion;  it  is  something  of  which 
Government  can  and  should  take  cognizance  in 
deciding  upon  its  course  of  action. 

The  problem  which  arises  when  questions  of  the 
second  class  come  up  for  settlement  carries  the 
present  discussion  from  the  political  element  in 
Government  to  the  administrative.  If  these  two 
elements  are  compared  it  is  seen  that  the  differences 
between  them  consists  in  this :  that  it  is  the  function 
of  the  one  to  determine  what  is  to  be  done,  and  of 
the  other  to  determine  how  it  should  be  done,  and 
to  do  it. 

When  this  distinction  is  kept  in  mind,  the  class 
of  questions  which  call  for  a  close  familiarity  with 
a  large  mass  of  detail,  often  of  a  highly  technical 
character,  and  for  the  exercise  of  trained  judgment, 
presents  no  peculiar  difficulties.  They  can  all  be  split 
up  into  their  component  parts  of  policy  and  admin- 
istration, and  when  thus  split  up  the  former  can  be 
submitted  to  public  opinion. 

To  illustrate  this  point  we  may  take  the  case  of 
an  anti-monopoly  law.  Let  us  suppose  that  a  party 
platform  includes  a  plank  in  favor  of  making  trade 
monopolies  illegal  and  of  punishing  violations  of 
the  law  by  imprisonment  without  the  option  of  a  fine. 


■i 

A 


i\ 


248  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

This  IS  obviously  a  question  on  which  a  real  expres- 
sion of  public  opinion  could  be  elicited.  Once  that 
opinion  has  been  expressed  by  the  election  of  the 
party  which  made  the  declaration,  the  proposed  anti- 
monopoly  law  IS  no  longer  a  question  of  policy  but 
of  administration.  When  Congress  proceeds  to 
frame  the  law,  it  acts,  indeed,  in  conformity  with 
public  opinion;  but  what  Congress  has  to  consider 
when  the  measure  is  under  discussion  is  not  whether 
its  provisions  conform  to  what  public  **opinion'' 
thinks  they  should  be,  but  whether  they  will  effect 
what  public  opinion  has  declared  should  be  effected. 

The  line  is  thus  indicated  at  which  policy  ends 
and  administration  begins. 

It  IS  at  this  line  that  an  applied  science  of  Govern- 
ment can  be  brought  into  operation. 

In  popular  government  everything  up  to  the  time 
when  a  distinct  aim  has  been  adopted  is  subject  to 
a  great  variety  of  influences,  rational  and  unrational; 
but  as  soon  as  the  aim  has  been  adopted,  and  what 
remains  to  be  done  is  to  carry  it  out,  the  question 
becomes  one  of  method  and  enters  a  stage  where 
scientific  principles  can  be  applied  to  it.  Briefly, 
we  cannot  have  a  science  of  aims  in  Government, 
because  popular  will  and  popular  opinion  upon  which 
the  acceptance  of  aim  largely  depends  are  not  in 
their  nature  scientific.    But  we  can  have  an  empirical 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  249 

science  of  administration  in  Government,  just  as 
we  already  have  it  in  industry,  because  there  is  a 
record  of  administration  experiment  from  which  it 

can  be  derived. 

A  science  of  administration  cannot  be  put  into 
effective  operation  over  night ;  it  cannot  be  put  into 
operation  at  all  until  there  is  a  demand  for  it 
among  those  in  whose  service  it  is  to  be  employed. 
If  the  public  should  ever  come  to  realize  the  terrible 
price  It  has  paid  for  indulging  its  passion  for  ama- 
teurism in  the  administration  of  Government,  such 
a  demand  would  arise  and  would  soon  become  in- 
sistent. 

The  present  conjuncture  is  one  in  which  the  pros- 
pect is  favorable  for  enlightenment  in  this  direction. 
The    discontent   with   Government   is   serious   and 
widespread;   it   is  not  confined  to   any   section^  of 
the    country    or   to    any    class   of   the    population. 
People  are  beginning  to  examine  Socialism  from  a 
new  standpoint.    They  are  becoming  less  concerned 
over  what  Socialism  might  do  in  the  United  States 
and  more  concerned  about  the  causes  which  have 
produced  it  in  the  United  States.    These  searchings 
will  lead  every  intelligent  inquirer,  sooner  or  later, 
to  the  conviction  that  the  strength  of  Socialism  is 
drawn  chiefly  from  the  weakness  of  the  system  it 
seeks  to  supplant ;  that  it  is  not  a  mere  phenomenon 


\v 


i 


M 


i( 


250  Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation 

of  perversity;  that  its  most  successful  recruiting 
agent  is  the  present  delinquency  of  Democratic 
Government. 

It  is  in  such  circumstances  that  the  cause  of  reform 
finds  its  best  opportunity.  The  growing  unrest  in 
the  country  presents  to  the  Administration  which  will 
assume  the  responsibility  of  Government  on  the 
fourth  of  March  next  the  widest  field  for  the  exer- 
cise of  sane  statesmanship  which  has  been  open  since 
the  end  of  the  Civil  War.  The  temptation  will  be 
strong  to  adopt  a  strategy  of  palliation;  habit  and 
the  memory  of  past  success  will  combine  to  make 
such  a  course  appear  more  attractive  than  the  ardu- 
ous procedure  of  regeneration  and  amendment.  If 
politicians  are  swayed  by  such  considerations,  states- 
men will  perceive  that  the  times  call  for  a  more 
courageous  policy,  that  the  crisis  is  one  which  pal- 
liatives may  prolong  but  which  they  cannot  deter- 
mine. 

The  position,  if  it  is  faced  with  frankness,  even 
at  this  late  day,  is  one  which  can  be  prevented  from 
passing  out  of  the  phase  in  which  Democratic  meth- 
ods are  under  suspicion  into  that  in  which  the  Demo- 
cratic principle  itself  will  be  the  center  of  attack. 
If  Representative  Government  is  not  to  be  reestab- 
lished, if  the  elective  franchise  is  to  be  left  as  it  is, 
if  administrative  technique  is  to  remain  at  its  present 
level,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  substantial  im- 


Democracy  and  the  Human  Equation  251 

provement  can  be  effected  in  the  political  and  social 
conditions  of  the  country  through  the  employment 
of  Constitutional  means.  But  if  substantial  im- 
provement does  not  take  place,  nothing  is  more 
certain  than  this:  that  what  the  people  will  be  called 
upon  to  undertake  will  not  be  a  serious  effort  to 
reform  their  Government,  but  a  desperate  fight  to 
preserve  it. 


THE   END 


i 


II 


ll  1 


M 


\ 


\ 


(. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing,  as 
provided  by  the  rules  of  the  Library  or  by  special  arrange- 
ment with  the  Librarian  in  charge. 


DATE  BORROWED 


DATE  DUK 


DATE  BORROWED 


DATE  DUE 


cas(ii4i)Mioo 


Batler 
D320 


Ir2 


^320 


Ir2 


^reland 

Democracy  and  the  human  relation 


iJ 


